campus_research_read_document

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

Adds behavioral details beyond the annotations: bounded section-based evidence, 20 MB maximum, no paywall/login/DRM bypass, and the fallback that the resource link remains available if processing fails. These are consistent with readOnlyHint and non-destructive flags, and enrich the agent's understanding of what happens during execution.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence delivers essential information — formats, routing, constraints, and fallback — with no redundant wording.

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?

The description covers formats, size limits, format-specific behavior, and fallback, making it fairly complete for a read-only tool. However, it omits any explanation of sectionCount and startSection, which are key to controlling the section-based output and would help an agent use the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (format has a description). The description adds some meaning to format by specifying ZIP handling and PDF routing, but does not explain sectionCount or startSection at all. These parameters remain ambiguous, and the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 it reads public HTTPS academic documents in various formats into bounded section-based evidence and returns a resource link. It distinguishes from the sibling tool campus_research_read_pdf by noting PDF routing, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

Provides practical usage context: lists supported formats, states PDF is routed to the specialised page reader, and gives explicit guidance for ZIP files (format=docx or epub). It also mentions size limit and paywall limitations, but does not explicitly name alternative tools for PDF-only use, leaving some inference needed.

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