Get paper details, references and citations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions working for paywalled papers (useful) and the return contents, but does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, or authentication needs. It implies a read-only operation but does not state 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 a single well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a useful qualifier (paywalled). No wasted words.

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?

While the description clarifies the main return values and a notable capability, the tool has 4 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema. Missing details about id_type, how citations/references are formatted, and error handling make the description incomplete for fully understanding the tool's behavior.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'references' and 'citations' but does not map them to the include_references and include_citations parameters, nor does it explain the id_type parameter or identifier formats. The schema has titles and defaults, but the description adds little meaning beyond hinting at the main 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 the verb 'Resolve' and the resource 'one paper by identifier', listing the return contents (metadata, references, citations). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_papers (which discovers papers) and list_sources (which lists sources).

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 implies usage when you have a specific paper identifier and need its details and citation network. It highlights that it works for paywalled papers, which is a practical consideration, but it does not explicitly contrast with search_papers or list_sources.

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