download_paper_pdf

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it follows redirects and returns file metadata, which is helpful but doesn't disclose potential issues like file size limits or authentication requirements.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks critical details that could be added without much length.

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 complexity (3 params, no schema descriptions) and the existence of output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits important context like file size, format, and behavior for non-English papers.

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%, and the description provides no additional meaning for the three parameters. It does not explain what paper_id represents, the purpose of include_base64, or when api_email is needed.

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 action ('Download') and the resource ('English paper PDF'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_paper_full_text (text) and get_paper_detail (metadata). The mention of 'following the upstream redirect' adds specificity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations (e.g., only English papers), or scenarios where siblings would be preferred.

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