Download a paper PDF

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-destructive write behavior, and the description adds valuable details beyond them: repeat calls overwrite the same path, resolution tries specific sources in order, and a failed resolution writes nothing. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 compact and front-loads the primary purpose, then adds necessary behavioral and alternative-tool context. Every sentence contributes useful information without filler or redundancy.

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 key operational details: resolution order, file persistence and overwrite semantics, indexing option, failure behavior, and the alternative read_paper. With the output schema and annotations also present, an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 all three parameters. The description mostly restates defaults and indexing behavior rather than adding new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb and resource: resolving one paper to an open-access PDF and saving it to disk. It also distinguishes itself from read_paper by noting the alternative is for text-only needs, making the tool's purpose and scope clear.

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 explicitly names read_paper as the alternative and states the condition for choosing it: when only the text is needed once. It also clarifies that paywalled papers with no open copy fail cleanly, helping an agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

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