paper_download_probe

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It says 'Probe' but doesn't disclose potential side effects, whether it's read-only, if it makes network calls, rate limits, or what it returns. The description gives minimal behavioral info beyond the action itself.

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 front-loaded with the purpose. The Args section is clear and brief. No wasted words, though it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.

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 probe with 2 parameters Chinad no output schema, the description adequately states purpose and parameters. However, it lacks behavioral details like whether it's a read-only operation and what the return value signifies, which would help an agent use it correctly.

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 explains both parameters beyond the schema: identifier is a DOI or UT, and provider_hint restricts to a single provider. This adds meaningful context.

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: to probe whether a provider can fetch a given identifier. It distinguishes from siblings like paper_download_fetch (which likely performs the fetch) by using 'probe' and 'likely'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 implies usage (check before fetching), but doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs alternatives. It provides context that provider_hint restricts to a single provider, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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