download_paper

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds specific behavioral details: it stores the paper locally (a side effect), tries HTML first then falls back to PDF, and supports start/max_chars pagination. This goes beyond the annotations to clarify the tool's non-read-only nature and practical 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence earns its place by covering core behavior, fallback strategy, storage side effect, and pagination. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately states the return type ('text content'), explains side effects (local storage), and covers pagination for large papers. It lacks details on error behavior, rate limits, or output format nuances, but the openWorldHint annotation mitigates this, making the description reasonably complete.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'start/max_chars pagination,' but this concept is largely already stated in the schema (e.g., 'Zero-based character offset' and 'Maximum raw paper characters'). It provides no new details about paper_id beyond what's in the 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Download a paper from arXiv and return its text content.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like read_paper by mentioning it stores the paper locally and uses HTML/PDF fallback extraction, making the tool's unique purpose evident.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (for downloading and obtaining text content with pagination) but does not explicitly compare it to alternatives like read_paper. It implies usage for full paper retrieval and handling large papers, which is a clear situational context, yet lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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