read_paper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions caching behavior (cache hit vs miss) and the meaning of max_pages=0 (full text). However, it does not disclose what happens if the PDF is inaccessible, any required permissions, or the format of the extracted text.

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 extremely concise: two sentences for purpose and process, then bullet-style argument explanations. No extraneous words. Every sentence provides essential information.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description covers the main functionality well. It specifies the tool only works for arXiv papers, describes the caching mechanism, and explains both parameters. Minor gap: could mention that extracted text is plain text, but overall sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.

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 provides minimal information (no descriptions for parameters). The description adds clear semantics: paper_id is an arXiv ID with an example ('2301.12597'), and max_pages is explained as max pages to extract with 0 meaning full text. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description 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 extracts full text from arXiv PDFs with caching. It uses a specific verb ('extract') and identifies the resource ('arXiv paper PDF'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'download_paper' which presumably only downloads without extracting text.

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 via the action and input schema but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_paper_by_id' (which may return metadata) or 'download_paper'. No exclusion criteria or alternative guidance is provided.

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