read_crossref_paper

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

The description honestly states that CrossRef does not provide direct paper content and that the tool returns a message indicating lack of support. This transparency about its limitation is good, but no other behavioral details are provided.

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 reasonably structured with sections (Args, Returns, Note) but could be more concise. It is not overly verbose, but some content is redundant.

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 no annotations and presence of an output schema, the description covers the return type. However, it fails to explain why the tool exists if it does not work, leaving the agent without a clear use case. Overall incomplete.

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 description adds basic meaning to parameters: paper_id is a DOI, save_path is a directory. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage, but the extra info is minimal.

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 states 'Attempt to read and extract text content from a CrossRef paper' but then clarifies it's not supported, creating confusion. The purpose is contradictory: it implies it tries to read but ultimately cannot.

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 suggests using the DOI through the publisher's website, implying the tool is ineffective. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_crossref_paper_by_doi' or other read tools.

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