download_with_fallback

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It describes the fallback logic and expected return value, but lacks details on side effects (file creation, permissions), error handling, or limitations (rate limits, authentication). This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections, making it scannable. While it is somewhat long, every sentence adds necessary information. A bit more conciseness could be achieved by omitting routine defaults.

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 and many sibling tools, the description covers the fallback logic and parameter roles. The output schema is noted as present but not shown; the description's return explanation is sufficient. It lacks advanced context like concurrent usage or rate limits.

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?

Input schema has 0% coverage, so the description must explain all parameters. It does: each parameter is described with its role and defaults. However, some descriptions are brief (e.g., 'Optional DOI used for fallback'), and the 'source' field lists valid values but no format constraints.

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's purpose: to try a fallback chain for downloading a paper (source-native, OA repositories, Unpaywall, then Sci-Hub). This differentiates it from sibling source-specific download tools.

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 explains the fallback order and optional Sci-Hub usage, implying when to use this tool versus single-source downloads. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as preferring a specific source tool.

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