download_scihub

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the age limitation (pre-2023) and that it's for paywalled papers not on arXiv. However, it does not mention potential issues like regional blocks or download success rates, which would be useful for an agent. Still, the disclosed constraints are valuable.

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 sections for purpose, usage guidelines, args, returns, and example. It is concise yet comprehensive, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 (simple download with two parameters), no output schema, and rich sibling set, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use, parameters, return value, and example. The workflow integration with search_crossref adds completeness.

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 add meaning. It explains the 'doi' parameter with examples and format, and 'save_path' with default value and purpose. This fully compensates for the absent schema descriptions.

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: 'Download paper PDF via Sci-Hub using DOI (for older papers only).' It specifies the resource (paper PDF), action (download), and constraint (older papers only), distinguishing it from sibling tools that cover different sources or paper ages.

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 guidelines: use when you have a DOI, paper is before 2023, behind a paywall and not on arXiv, and after searching CrossRef. It also outlines a workflow: search_crossref -> get DOI -> download_scihub. This clearly differentiates from alternatives.

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