firecrawl_research_read_paper

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying that it returns 'best-matching passages' or a notice if full text is unavailable, which goes beyond annotations to explain 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?

The description is three sentences, each serving a purpose: core action, use case, and output. No redundancy or unnecessary words.

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 research paper reading tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the purpose (read passages for verification), the input (paper ID and question), and what to expect (passages or unavailability notice). It is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 67%, with descriptions for paperId and k but not for question. The tool description does not add extra parameter details beyond the schema. Since coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs ('Read', 'VERIFY') and specifies the resource (in-body passages of one paper for a question). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like firecrawl_research_search_papers by focusing on verification of candidate constraints.

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?

Provides a clear use case ('VERIFY whether a candidate satisfies a constraint') but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or mention when not to use. The context includes sibling tools for inspection and search, but no direct comparison.

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