read_paper

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds substantial behavioral context: returns markdown, supports pagination (start/max_chars), and fails with clear error if not downloaded. This goes well beyond the annotation and fully informs the agent of tool behavior.

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: purpose and output format, pagination and error handling, workflow. Front-loaded with the most critical information, no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return format (markdown) and covers pagination and prerequisites. For a 3-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, this description is fully complete—it informs the agent of everything needed to 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description mentions 'start/max_chars pagination' but adds no new parameter details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 reads text content of previously downloaded papers, distinguishing it from get_abstract (which returns only the abstract) and download_paper (which downloads but doesn't read). The verb 'read' and resource 'paper' are specific and unambiguous.

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 states the prerequisite (call download_paper first) and provides a workflow (search_papers -> download_paper -> read_paper). It notes the error condition if not downloaded. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use an alternative like get_abstract for small summaries, which would make it a 5.

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