get_paper_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'downloading and extracting text from its PDF', which implies network operations and processing, but fails to disclose critical traits such as potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or performance characteristics (e.g., time to download/process). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and method without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get the full text content'), making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by adding value, resulting in an optimal balance of brevity and informativeness.

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 tool's complexity (involving PDF download and text extraction) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the return value looks like (e.g., plain text, structured data), potential errors, or operational constraints. For a tool with no structured data to supplement it, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'paper_id' parameter well-documented as 'arXiv paper ID (e.g., 2104.13478 or cs/0001001)'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this schema, as it does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 purpose: 'Get the full text content of a paper by downloading and extracting text from its PDF.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('full text content of a paper'), and method ('downloading and extracting text from its PDF'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_paper' (which might return metadata instead of content), so it misses full sibling 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools such as 'get_paper', 'search_by_category', or 'search_papers', nor does it specify contexts or exclusions for usage. This lack of comparative guidance limits the agent's ability to select the correct tool in a multi-tool environment.

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