paper_download_verify_artifact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Verify' strongly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, and the listed checks clarify expected behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that no changes are made or what happens if verification fails, leaving minor gaps.

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?

A single, compact sentence that conveys the purpose, scope, and method. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 has only one parameter and an output schema (which explains return values), the description sufficiently covers what is verified (existence, validity, page count, hash). It lacks explicit mention of error handling or prerequisites, but is otherwise complete for a straightforward verification task.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It does by clarifying that the only parameter, artifact_id, refers to a 'staged artifact', linking it to the verification context. It does not explain format, but a string ID is self-explanatory. This adds meaningful semantics 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 uses a specific verb 'Verify' with a clear resource 'staged artifact' and lists precise checks (existence, PDF validity, page count, hash), distinguishing it from sibling tools like fetch, discard, probe, health, and list_providers.

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 explicitly indicates it applies to 'staged artifacts', which gives clear context for when to use. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'staged' qualifier implies it follows fetch and precedes discard, providing enough contextual guidance.

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