Fetch Paper

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it explains the OpenAlex lookup, use of the fetch-url ladder, in-process PDF parsing, and the paywalled fallback. This gives the agent a strong sense of what will happen, aligning with the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three well-structured sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second explains the mechanism, and the third covers edge cases and downstream use. Every sentence earns its place, with key information front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers inputs, processing steps, the paywalled edge case, and downstream integration, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already thoroughly documents both parameters (identifier and include_full_text) with descriptive text, so the description adds no new meaning. The baseline for 100% schema coverage applies here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses specific verbs ('resolve', 'return') and identifies the resource (a paper) with four supported identifier types. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like fetch-url by emphasizing metadata and full-text retrieval, and even mentions downstream tools, making its role unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool by stating it resolves paper identifiers and suggests feeding results to appraise-evidence or export-bibliography. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like search-literature or fetch-url, though the context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.