download_openaire

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose safety, permissions, and side effects. It only states 'Download PDF' and returns path/error, omitting whether this is read-only, auth requirements, or potential issues like rate limits.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences for description, then structured Args/Returns. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded.

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 download tool with output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return. Missing explicit mention that file is actually saved (not a link) and error handling, but still adequate.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning: paper_id is described as 'OpenAIRE paper identifier', save_path has default and directory role. It explains the return type. More detail on paper_id format would improve clarity.

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 'Download PDF for a paper from OpenAIRE', specifying the action (download), resource (PDF), and source (OpenAIRE). This distinguishes it from sibling tools targeting other repositories.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like download_arxiv or search_openaire. The description lacks any comparison or context for selection.

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