get_paper

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond these: it details the response shapes for each view, explains the `figures_truncated` signal, and describes the effect of passing 0 to figure_limit. No contradictions with annotations.

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 structured with a clear lead sentence, a summary of view categories, and a bulleted list that makes each view self-explanatory. Every sentence adds value; no filler or redundancy. The length is justified by the complexity of the view options.

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 three parameters, one enum, and an output schema, the description covers all relevant aspects: how to identify the paper, which view to use for what purpose, and how the optional parameter behaves. The presence of an output schema does not reduce the need for the view explanations, and the description provides them completely.

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 carries the full burden. It thoroughly explains `artifact_id_or_url` (paper identifier), enumerates and explains every `view` enum value, and defines `figure_limit` (caps figure preview, server default 3, 0 suppresses with signal). This goes far beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Fetch a Lacuna paper by artifact id or paper URL.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the Lacuna paper entity and the identifier format, and enumerates distinct response views that clarify scope.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: 'Start here for almost everything' for context view, 'Cheaper than context when you only need basic metadata' for full view, and 'Use for citation-style display' for preview. This directly helps an agent select the appropriate view and implicitly when to use this tool (when an artifact ID/URL is available).

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