read_paper

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses extraction preferences (arXiv HTML/LaTeX source falls back to PDF), permanent caching per version, pagination behavior (1-based page, character-based page_size, total_pages, has_more), and version resolution. This gives the agent a thorough understanding of the tool's behavior beyond the schema.

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 well-structured and concise: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by precise implementation details. Every sentence adds value, with important parameters and response behavior described using code formatting for clarity. No redundant content.

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 output schema exists, the description adequately covers return fields (total_pages, has_more) and explains pagination, extraction, caching, and versioning. However, session_id remains unexplained, and there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_paper or download_paper. Overall it is nearly complete but has minor gaps.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), but the description explains page (1-based), page_size (characters per page), and paper_id (version inclusion and bare id resolution to latest). session_id is not explained, leaving one of four parameters undocumented. This provides substantial added meaning beyond the schema but not full coverage.

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 'Read a paper's full text' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like download_paper (which likely saves files) and get_paper (which might provide metadata) by focusing on full text with pagination. The extraction and version details further clarify its unique role.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use this tool (to read full text, paginated to avoid context overflow) and how to handle versions via the id. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the sibling list implies differentiation.

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