get_paper

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the complete paper payload and mentions the content (abstract, summaries, method/task entities). It implies read-only behavior via 'Fetch' and 'inspect', though it doesn't explicitly state lack of side effects. Sufficient for a simple read operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds value: what it fetches, the identifier, when to use, and what it returns. No fluff.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema (though not shown), so the description doesn't need to detail return structure. It covers purpose, usage, parameter meaning, and return payload. The only gap is the parameter name mismatch, preventing a perfect score.

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 has one parameter `paper_id` with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does explain the identifier as `paper_uuid` and notes it comes from search/list results, adding meaning. However, the inconsistency between the description's `paper_uuid` and the schema's `paper_id` could confuse an agent, reducing clarity.

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 the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'a single ACL conference NLP paper', specifying the identifier as `paper_uuid` (Qdrant point id). It also distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it is used after obtaining an ID from search_papers or list_papers, making its purpose 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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'USE THIS to inspect a paper in full detail when you already have its ID from a search_papers or list_papers result.' This clearly indicates when to use and implicitly contrasts with searching or listing, offering context for tool selection.

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