APIbase

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these annotations by specifying exactly what data fields are returned and identifying the external source (OpenAlex). It does not contradict the safety 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action ('Get full details') and uses an em-dash to cleanly list the specific data fields returned. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary verbosity.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. It compensates for the missing output schema by listing the key fields returned. It could be improved by explicitly stating the relationship to education.papers.search in the main description text, though this is covered in the parameter documentation.

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 100% description coverage with detailed examples ('W2741809807', '10.1038/nature12373') and sourcing guidance. The main description reinforces the parameter semantics by mentioning 'by OpenAlex ID or DOI', but does not add additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full details for an academic paper'), explicitly identifies the data source (OpenAlex), and lists specific fields returned (authors, citations, abstract, references, open access links). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like education.papers.search (by specifying ID lookup vs search) and education.crossref.doi (by specifying OpenAlex).

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 clear context that this tool requires an OpenAlex ID or DOI ('by OpenAlex ID or DOI'), implying a prerequisite lookup step. While the main description text doesn't explicitly name the alternative tool, the parameter schema description explicitly states 'Get IDs from paper_search', establishing the workflow. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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