semantic_scholar_get_paper

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint). It does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving agents uninformed about potential side effects.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loads the core purpose. However, it lacks any structure such as bullet points or sections, which could improve readability for complex parameter details.

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 the tool having multiple optional parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the overall behavior, return format, or how parameters interact, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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 description only explains the paper_id parameter format, while omitting all other parameters (include_citations, include_references, limits, etc.). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving agents guessing about the purpose of most parameters.

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 clearly states 'Get paper details' and lists accepted identifier formats. It is specific about the resource and action, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools like semantic_scholar_get_author or semantic_scholar_search_papers.

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 provides the accepted identifier formats, indicating when to use the tool. However, it offers no guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternative tools for similar tasks.

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