get_pdf_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral load and does so well: it discloses cost/latency characteristics (slow, bandwidth-heavy) and the extraction scope limit (first pages only). It does not mention failure modes for bad or unavailable arXiv IDs, which is the remaining gap for a network-dependent tool.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the action stated first and the cost/when-to-use caveat immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter fetch tool with a full schema and an output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, and invocation conditions adequately. Minor gaps are error behavior and how much text typically comes back, but the output schema covers return shape.

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 100%, so both arxiv_id and max_pages are already well documented in the schema with format examples and bounds. The phrase "first pages" loosely reinforces max_pages but adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: download a paper's PDF and extract text from its first pages. It implicitly contrasts with the abstract-level tools, but never names search_papers or get_paper, so the differentiation is by implication rather than explicit routing.

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?

"use only when the abstract is insufficient" is a clear positive condition plus an implicit exclusion, and "slow and bandwidth-heavy" reinforces the threshold for calling it. It stops short of naming the cheaper alternative tool the agent should try first.

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