Read Papers Batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that cached PDFs are parsed locally with no network, uncached ones are fetched concurrently, and per-item errors are isolated and returned individually. The remaining gap is that it never mentions login/verification requirements or the 20-paper cap for network-bound fetches, which matters given siblings like renew_session and open_verification_window.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the batch purpose, then execution behavior, then failure semantics. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, and the description covers caching, concurrency, and partial-failure behavior. It is nearly complete for calling the tool correctly, losing only the authentication/verification caveat that the sibling set suggests is relevant.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents papers, max_chars, concurrency, and total_char_budget thoroughly. The description only echoes the concurrency behavior already stated in the schema and adds no new parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('批量读取多篇论文正文') plus the value proposition of collapsing N round trips into one. That framing clearly distinguishes it from the single-paper sibling read_paper_fulltext without needing to name it.

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 'N round trips → 1' framing implicitly tells the agent to use this instead of looping single reads, and the concurrency note about CAPTCHA triggering is practical guidance. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to batch, so it is not a full 5.

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