download_paper

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: it tries HTML first then falls back to PDF conversion, and it stores the paper locally. Annotations provide `openWorldHint: true`, and the description adds specifics about the fallback strategy and local storage, which informs the agent of side effects.

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 three sentences with front-loaded purpose. Each sentence adds essential information: core function, fallback mechanism, and pagination/storage details. There is no redundancy or wasted words.

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 is adequate for a tool with moderate complexity. However, it lacks details about the output format (text content is mentioned but no structure), error handling, prerequisites (e.g., arXiv API access), or rate limits. An output schema is missing, so the description could compensate by describing the return value more precisely.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, and the description adds context by explaining that `start` and `max_chars` are used for pagination of very large papers. This helps the agent understand when to use these optional parameters, going beyond the basic schema descriptions.

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 downloads a paper from arXiv and returns text content. It specifies the resource (arXiv paper) and the action (download, return text). It also distinguishes from siblings like `get_abstract` or `read_paper` by mentioning HTML/PDF fallback and pagination for large papers.

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 for full-text extraction and mentions pagination for large papers, but it does not explicitly guide on when to use this tool versus siblings like `get_paper_latex_section` or `get_abstract`. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' language.

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