get_paper_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a retrieval operation ('조회합니다'), implying read-only behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling (e.g., invalid paper IDs), response format, or whether it's a real-time query. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the tool's function from the types of details retrieved.

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 the complexity (a retrieval tool with 2 required parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., JSON structure), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a tool that fetches detailed information, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('paper_id' and 'source') with descriptions and required status. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of paper IDs or how 'source' affects the data retrieved. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb ('조회합니다' - retrieves/looks up) and resource ('논문/문헌의 상세 정보' - detailed information of papers/documents), specifying what information is retrieved (abstract, keywords, citation info). It distinguishes from 'search' (which likely finds papers) and 'list_providers' (which likely lists sources), though the differentiation could be more explicit.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a paper ID), when not to use it (e.g., for searching papers), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'search' (which might return brief results) or 'list_providers' (which might list available sources).

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