get_paper

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful provenance behavior that annotations cannot convey: arXiv IDs resolve via arXiv with the paper's licence, DOIs via OpenAlex then SportRxiv or Crossref. It does not mention failure behavior (e.g. what happens if the ID is unknown) or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and identifier types before the use case. The returned-field list is dense but each item is meaningful for a lookup tool; nothing is redundant with the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating title, authors, dates, venue, IDs, licences, open copies, abstract and citation line. Combined with the read-only annotations and full param coverage, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though error/empty-result behavior is unstated.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by naming two additional accepted ID forms (zotero: ID and local: ID) that the schema does not list, adding real value.

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?

States a specific verb ('look up one paper') and enumerates the exact identifiers accepted (DOI, arXiv ID, OpenAlex ID, zotero: ID, local: ID) plus the fields returned. The singular 'one paper' clearly separates it from the sibling search_papers.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('check that a reference exists and says what is claimed'), which tells the agent when this tool is the right choice. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when not to use it, so it does not reach a 5.

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