download_crossref

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a message indicating failure to download, which is transparent. However, the first sentence says 'Attempt to download' while the return suggests no actual attempt is made, creating slight inconsistency.

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 concise with separate sections for Args, Returns, and Note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema (return value described), the description covers purpose, parameters, behavior, and usage guidance comprehensively.

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?

Despite the schema having no descriptions, the description provides detailed semantics for both parameters: paper_id includes an example DOI, and save_path states the default directory. This fully compensates for the schema coverage gap.

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 attempts to download a PDF from CrossRef and specifies the paper_id parameter. However, the return message indicates direct download is not supported, which may confuse the purpose slightly. It differentiates from siblings by targeting CrossRef.

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 notes that CrossRef does not support direct PDF downloads and advises using the DOI via the publisher's website. This provides clear when-not-to-use guidance and an alternative, though it does not reference sibling tools like get_crossref_paper_by_doi.

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