get_paper_outline

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description adds 'paginated', 'Stable hierarchical section IDs', and the markdown context. These are meaningful behavioral details. It does not disclose failure modes, but the read-only nature is already annotated and there is no contradiction.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the most actionable routing hint an agent needs. Every word earns its place.

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?

With a fully documented input schema, a read-only annotation, and a clear description of the returned outline and its IDs, the tool is fully specified for correct invocation. The pointer to read_paper_section completes the usage contract without needing an output schema.

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 every parameter is already well documented. The description adds a light link to pagination semantics but no deeper parameter detail, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage baseline.

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 has a specific verb ('Return'), a precise resource ('heading outline for a downloaded paper (markdown)'), and distinguishes itself from section content retrieval by explicitly pointing to read_paper_section. It is immediately clear what the tool produces and how it differs from its siblings.

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 a clear usage clue by saying 'use read_paper_section to fetch one', signaling that this tool is for outlines, not content. It does not exhaustively enumerate all alternatives, but the routing guidance is sufficient for a heading-list tool.

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