read_paper

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: it returns markdown, supports start/max_chars pagination for large papers, and fails with a clear error if the prerequisite download is missing. This goes well beyond annotation-only information.

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?

Three sentences, each contributing: purpose, return format and pagination, and prerequisite workflow. Information is front-loaded and there is no redundancy.

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?

The tool is moderately simple, but with no output schema, the description compensates by stating return format (markdown) and pagination. It lacks details on what the markdown includes (e.g., figures, references) but is otherwise complete for the workflow.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions for paper_id, start, and max_chars. The description mentions pagination but adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it is a fair baseline given full schema coverage.

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?

‘Read the text content of a paper’ clearly states the verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like download_paper (which fetches) and get_abstract (which reads only the abstract), and specifies the markdown output and pagination support.

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 explicitly says to call download_paper first and gives a workflow: search_papers -> download_paper -> read_paper. It also warns about failure if the paper is not downloaded, making the usage context crystal clear.

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