read_by_cite_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses caching, extraction via pypdf, default save path, and return type. However, it does not explicitly mention network usage or potential side effects beyond caching, but overall it provides good behavioral context.

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 and well-structured, with a clear summary followed by details on parameters and return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the main action is front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity and presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the essential workflow of caching, downloading, and extracting. It mentions error return but could be more explicit about what happens on missing cite_key. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adequately explains both parameters: cite_key as from search results with an example, and save_path with default location. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's 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 and extracts full text using a cite_key, distinguishing it from sibling 'download_by_cite_key' which likely only downloads the PDF. The caching behavior is also mentioned, providing a specific verb-resource pair.

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 does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'download_by_cite_key' or 'get_paper_by_doi'. While the caching and extraction behavior is implied, there is no guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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