get_paper_card

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'return' (implying read-only) but does not confirm safety, idempotency, auth requirements, or side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 brief (one sentence) but lacks structure. It omits crucial details like return format or parameter use. Brevity is not helpful when it sacrifices clarity.

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?

Given no output schema and minimal description, the tool is incomplete for an agent. It does not explain what the compact paper card contains in terms of data structure, limiting the agent's ability to interpret results.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the sole parameter 'arxiv_id' (e.g., format, example, required format). Agent would need external knowledge to know it's an arXiv identifier.

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 it returns a compact paper card with specific components (scores, methods, claims, possible experiments). The verb 'return' and resource 'paper card' are explicit and 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_experiment, search_arxiv, or ingest_paper. Context signals show 16 sibling tools with overlapping themes, but description offers no differentiation.

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