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 'provider-neutral structured metadata' and states it does not summarize or read the paper. This is sufficient for a typical retrieval tool, though additional details like rate limits or authentication requirements are missing.

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 concise, consisting of seven sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, and the structure is logical.

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 the tool has an output schema (handling return values), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, supported identifiers, provider-specific guidance, and limitations. It is complete for a two-parameter tool with external schema coverage.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It explains that supported identifiers for paper_id depend on the provider and lists examples (DOI, arXiv ID, etc.). This adds significant value beyond the schema's minimal definition.

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 tool retrieves canonical metadata for a single academic paper. It specifies the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'metadata for a single academic paper', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_papers by focusing on a single paper and from citation/reference tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each provider: 'Use arXiv for direct arXiv metadata retrieval. Use Semantic Scholar when richer citation counts, reference counts, publication metadata, and external identifiers are required.' It also clarifies what the tool does not do (summarize or read full content). However, it does not explicitly exclude using this tool for tasks better suited to siblings like get_paper_citations.

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