download_springer_nature_paper

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behaviors: auth requirement, coverage limitation, and an explicit failure contract ('unavailable full text is reported, never fabricated'). It omits rate limits, permission scope details, and what the returned JATS payload looks like.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and source, followed by prerequisite and limitation. Every sentence carries distinct information 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?

For a one-parameter download tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers auth, coverage limits, and error behavior adequately. It could add return-format expectations, but the essential call-time information is present.

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 single parameter 'doi' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description should compensate, but it only implies matching via 'matching full-text' and never explains the doi argument itself. The parameter name is largely self-evident in this context, so this is a minor rather than severe gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Download) and a precisely scoped resource (full-text JATS from Springer Nature's OPEN ACCESS API). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling download_elsevier_paper and from search/index tools.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite (SPRINGER_NATURE_API_KEY with Open Access API enabled) and an explicit scope limit (subscription articles are not provided), which tells the agent when this tool will not work. It does not explicitly route to an alternative tool for subscription content, so it falls short of a 5.

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