arxiv_paper_detail_by_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' weakly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention error behavior for invalid IDs, rate limits, authentication needs, or any other behavioral traits. It provides only the barest safety hint.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It efficiently states the core purpose, though its extreme brevity leaves out important context.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only a terse purpose, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what fields the returned metadata contains, what format paper_id takes, or that a search tool is the intended path to obtain the ID. An agent would lack critical information needed for reliable invocation.

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 only ties paper_id to 'a specific ArXiv paper,' which is a slight improvement over the raw schema, but it does not specify the expected format (e.g., arXiv ID like 2101.12345) or how the ID is obtained. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct the parameter.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and identifies both the resource ('a specific ArXiv paper') and the information type ('abstract/metadata'). It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools like arxiv_paper_search_by_query by implying a targeted lookup, though it does not explicitly mention 'by ID' or name the alternative.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state that the paper_id is typically obtained from a search tool, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The only implicit cue is 'for a specific ArXiv paper,' which is minimal.

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