Get Metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or what 'complete' encompasses. It provides no behavioral context beyond the ambiguous word 'complete.'

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?

A single efficient sentence with no waste, and the resource is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for the information an agent needs, but structurally sound.

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?

The existence of an output schema means return values need not be described, which covers the biggest potential gap. However, for a lookup tool among many search siblings, the description should say more about when this is the right call versus searching.

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 coverage is 100% with a single documented doc_id parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about identifier format or where it comes from, which is the correct baseline when the schema is complete.

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 states a specific verb (Get) and resource (metadata) scoped to 'a specific paper,' so the agent knows it is a targeted lookup rather than a search. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like search or list_papers, which is a missed opportunity given nine siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as search or list_papers. Usage is only implied by the word 'specific,' leaving the agent to infer that a known doc_id is required.

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