paper_download_fetch

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It mentions 'Fetch a paper into the staging area' and clarifies that it does not accept certain parameters, giving some insight into its behavior. However, it does not detail side effects (e.g., network usage, potential failures) or mention whether it is read-only or modifies state. The 'verified artifact' phrase hints at a workflow but lacks explicit disclosure.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear main sentence, a separate line for exclusions, and an Args section listing parameters. No superfluous wording or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description mentions 'return artifact metadata' which gives a basic idea of the output. It also explains the staging area and the caller's responsibility to move the verified artifact, providing workflow context. It does not cover error handling, but for a simple fetch tool, the coverage is sufficient.

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 description adds meaningful semantics to both parameters: identifier is described as 'DOI or UT', and provider_hint is explained as 'Preferred provider name (hard constraint if given).' This exceeds the schema's bare definitions. Additionally, it lists exclusions (project, output_dir, etc.) that are not in the schema, further clarifying the parameter space.

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 function: 'Fetch a paper into the staging area; return artifact metadata.' The verb 'fetch' and resource 'paper' specify the primary action. It also distinguishes itself from siblings (discard, probe, health, list, verify) by focusing on the retrieval aspect.

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 usage context by noting that it does NOT accept certain parameters (project, output_dir, year, publisher, final filename) and indicates the caller's role in moving the verified artifact to final storage. This implies when this tool should be used (for staging) versus final operations, though it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools.

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