arxiv_fetch_paper_text

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

The description discloses the fallback mechanism (HTML vs abstract) and character limit, but omits details like error handling, rate limits, or authentication. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and provides moderate transparency.

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 with five sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, fallback, usage, parameter, return. No fluff.

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 tool with one required parameter and clear output, the description is largely complete. However, it fails to mention the response_format parameter, which is documented in the schema but not in the description.

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 description adds value for the paper_id parameter with an example and relationship to arxiv_get_paper. However, it omits the response_format parameter, which has a default and enum. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates.

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 it fetches readable text content of an arXiv paper, and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by advising to use arxiv_get_paper first to find the ID. This provides a specific verb and resource with clear differentiation.

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 gives a clear workflow: use arxiv_get_paper to get the ID, then call this tool. It also explains fallback behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention any exclusions.

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