read_openaire_paper

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

The description uses 'Attempt to read,' hinting at possible failure, but does not disclose whether the tool downloads the PDF first, requires prior download, or other behavioral traits. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and is insufficient.

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 extremely concise with two sentences plus parameter definitions. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded, with no 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?

Given the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks context on how this read tool differs from the download sibling and what prerequisites exist. It is adequate but not complete.

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%, but the description adds meaning for both parameters: paper_id is identified as 'OpenAIRE paper identifier' and save_path as 'Directory where the PDF is/will be saved.' This adds value beyond the schema, though it could provide more detail like ID format.

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 action: 'read and extract text content from an OpenAIRE paper.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like download_openaire which likely handles PDF download.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other read_* tools or how it relates to download_openaire. Usage is implied but lacks exclusions or context.

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