read_crossref_paper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It clearly states that direct paper reading is not supported and that the tool returns a message to that effect. The behavioral limitation is transparently disclosed.

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 reasonably structured with Args, Returns, and Note sections. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be slightly more concise, as the note could be integrated earlier.

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 simple behavior and lack of annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what the tool does, its limitations, and an alternative action. The return type is mentioned, and the output schema exists (context indicates true). Good completeness.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains paper_id as a CrossRef DOI with an example, and save_path as a directory with a default. This adds clarity beyond the bare schema.

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 indicates the tool attempts to read a CrossRef paper but then states it doesn't support direct paper reading. The purpose is clear: to inform the user that CrossRef does not provide paper content. However, the initial phrasing is slightly misleading as it says 'attempt to read' but ultimately returns a failure message.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling tools that read papers from other sources. The note suggests using the publisher's website instead, but does not name alternative tools. Usage context is not well-defined.

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