start_paper_generation

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses 18 AI agents, searches 500M+ sources, and returns a generation_id for async tracking. It also mentions credit costs for page ranges. However, it omits details on authentication, rate limits, or potential failure modes.

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 an intro, Args section, and Returns. It is front-loaded with purpose. However, it contains some marketing-like language (e.g., '18 specialized AI agents') that could be trimmed without losing clarity.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all essentials: parameter details, return value, async behavior, and credit costs. It enables an agent to understand what the tool does and how to use it.

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 compensates fully. Each parameter is explained with examples, allowed values, and constraints (e.g., topic max 500 chars, context max 50,000 chars). This adds significant meaning beyond the minimal 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Start generating an academic research paper with verified citations.' It uses a specific verb ('start') and resource ('paper generation'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_paper_status and list_my_papers.

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 provides context for use (starting a paper) and hints at subsequent steps via the return value (generation_id for check_paper_status). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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