download_crossref

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the tool does not download PDFs, returns an error message, and that save_path is unused. This is comprehensive for a tool whose main function is to redirect users.

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 concise, well-structured with clear sections (bolded headings for what CrossRef does not do, what it is, and a numbered list of alternatives). Every sentence adds value, and the use of all caps for key points aids readability without being wasteful.

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 (it is a 'negative' tool that doesn't perform its apparent function), the description is fully complete. It explains what it does, what it doesn't, and provides a clear fallback strategy. No output schema is needed because the return is an error message, which is sufficiently described.

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 must compensate. It adds meaning for both parameters: paper_id is a DOI, and save_path is explicitly indicated as unused. However, it could elaborate on the DOI format or save_path expected type (though it's unused). Still, it provides essential context beyond the bare 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 that CrossRef does not support direct PDF downloads and that the tool's purpose is to return an error message explaining alternatives. It distinguishes itself from sibling download tools by explicitly stating it is not for downloading.

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 explicit usage guidance: when to use this tool (never for actual downloading) and when to use alternatives (download_arxiv, download_scihub, download_semantic) in a recommended order. It also explains that save_path is unused, preventing misconfiguration.

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