semantic_scholar_get_paper

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses caching for 5 minutes, rate limits (1 req/s unkeyed, 10 with API key), automatic retry on 429/502/503, not-found errors, parallel fetching of citations/references, and default/alternate output formats. This is rich behavioral context that significantly helps the agent.

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 organized logically: what it does, accepted IDs, return fields, optional flags, caching/rate limits/errors, output format, and alternative tool. Each sentence adds distinct value without redundancy, making it informative yet efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description still lists the return fields, explains error behavior, caching, rate limits, and output format options. It also covers the main parameters and gives an explicit pointer to the bulk alternative, making the tool's behavior comprehensive for a single-paper fetch operation.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains accepted paper_id formats with an example, the meaning of include_citations/include_references and their 1-100 limit, and the response_format options. However, it does not explicitly mention api_key or the default/named limits for citations_limit/references_limit, so the coverage is good but not exhaustive.

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 what it returns (title, abstract, authors, venue, year, citation counts, TLDR, PDF link), distinguishing it from siblings like semantic_scholar_search_papers and semantic_scholar_get_author. It also names the specific ID formats accepted, making the tool's scope 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 explicitly says 'To fetch many papers at once use semantic_scholar_bulk_papers', naming the alternative for the bulk case. It also implies when to use this tool (when you need one paper's details, citations, or references) and explains key usage options like include_citations and response_format.

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