lit_request_copy

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

The description explicitly states that the tool returns a draft and does not send anything, which is a key behavioral disclosure. It also notes that authors may lawfully share their own work, adding legal/scholarly context. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden well.

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 concise and well-structured, with the core action stated first, followed by context and a clear behavioral note. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and key behavior, but lacks details about the input identifier and the output format. Since an output schema exists, return values may be documented there, but the identifier semantics remain unclear. For a simple one-parameter tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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 schema has one parameter, 'identifier', with no description. The tool description does not explain what 'identifier' refers to (e.g., paper ID, DOI, URL). With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it doesn't clarify the identifier format or source.

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 function: drafting a reprint request to the corresponding author. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it returns a draft and does not send anything, which is a unique behavior among the listed tools.

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 context for when to use this tool: for obtaining a genuinely unavailable paper via the author, which is the highest-yield route. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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