download_scihub_paper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the download action and output format, but does not mention potential failures, network dependencies, or the scope of the text preview. The information is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences with no redundant information. It is concise and front-loaded, effectively communicating the essential purpose and prerequisite.

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 no output schema, the description mentions the return type (local path and text preview) adequately. However, it lacks details on error handling, file naming, or the length of the preview, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 the 'doi' parameter by stating 'using its DOI', which provides context. However, the 'topic_hint' parameter is not explained at all, leaving its purpose unclear. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate more fully.

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 action (download), the resource (paper PDF), the method (via Sci-Hub using DOI), and the output (local path and text preview). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like search_scihub and read_pdf_document.

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 includes a prerequisite (SCIHUB_ENABLED=true) and implies the use case (having a DOI for a paper). It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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