download_by_cite_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the lookup, local check, and fallback behavior. However, it does not specify file overwrite policy or error handling for missing papers.

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 well-structured with a clear opening and bullet-pointed Args/Returns. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. It could be more concise by removing the parameter descriptions that could be in schema.

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 the tool's complexity (2 params, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description fully covers the workflow, parameters, and return value. It references sibling tool download_paper, providing necessary context.

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 0%, but the description provides clear explanations for both parameters: cite_key format and source, save_path default directory. This adds significant value beyond the schema titles.

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 PDF using a cite_key. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'download_paper' by explaining that it checks for an existing local PDF first and falls back to download_paper, making the purpose and workflow explicit.

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 when to use: when you have a cite_key from search results. It mentions a fallback to download_paper, hinting at an alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use or provide a direct comparison with download_paper.

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