discover_paper_access

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. It does disclose that results are candidates and that success is not guaranteed, which is valuable. However, it does not mention failure modes, output shape, or any rate/access limitations beyond that caveat, leaving some behavior unspecified.

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 entire description is a single, tightly worded sentence. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key caveat without any filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus the 100% covered schema is largely sufficient. It explains the tool's purpose, scope, and key limitation. The only notable gap is the absence of any statement about what the tool returns, though the description's wording makes this reasonably inferable.

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 doi and verifyPdf clearly. The description echoes the DOI scope but adds no new meaning about parameter formats, defaults, or the bounded probe behavior described in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's specific action: discovering a public publisher PDF candidate for a single DOI. It also adds the important qualifier that it does not claim open-license or complete download success, which distinguishes it from download_paper and other access-oriented siblings without opening their schemas.

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 for when to use the tool: when you need a PDF candidate for one DOI and are not expecting guaranteed open-license or download success. It implicitly separates this from search tools by scoping to a single DOI, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use them.

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