Read paper pages

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

Annotations already declare a safe, non-open-world read, so this earns credit for the extra behavior it discloses: a hard 10-page-per-call cap that is not encoded in the schema, output bounding via max_chars, and the exact shape of truncation metadata ('next' = start_page + char_offset). The 'PDF text layer only' caveat is a useful reliability warning that annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by pagination mechanics and the one caveat. No filler and no restatement of the tool name.

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 still tells the agent what comes back (per-page text with real page numbers) and how to resume after truncation. Combined with the page-range cap and the fidelity caveat, nothing material for a correct call is missing.

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?

Coverage is only 60%, and the description fills the critical gaps: it supplies the 10-page limit that the schema's end_page maximum does not enforce, explains max_chars as an output bound rather than a filter, and defines char_offset/start_page as a continuation pair driven by the returned 'next' 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 and resource (text of a page range), plus scope constraints: 1-based indexing, max 10 pages per call, and per-page separation keyed to real page numbers. It also implicitly separates itself from render_paper_page by noting it reads the PDF text layer only.

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 explicit routing guidance to the sibling render_paper_page for verifying formulas and tables, and explains the continuation path when output is truncated. It does not address the other siblings (search_papers, get_paper_structure), but the primary alternative for this decision is clearly named.

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