read_dblp_paper

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It explicitly states the tool returns an informative message and does not provide paper content, fully disclosing its behavior.

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?

Description is well-structured with Args/Returns format but somewhat verbose for a simple stub. Could be trimmed, but clarity is good.

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 simple behavior (returning a message), the description completely covers purpose, limitations, parameters, and return value. No output schema needed.

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 has 0% description coverage; description compensates fully by explaining paper_id as dblp identifier and save_path as unused, adding crucial meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description states the verb 'read and extract text content' and immediately clarifies that dblp does not support direct access, distinguishing it from working read tools. Purpose is clear, though the tool is a stub.

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?

Description implies not to use this tool for actual content by stating the limitation, but does not explicitly recommend alternatives like download_dblp or other read tools. Usage is clear but guidance for when to avoid is implied.

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