download_openalex

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool downloads a PDF and saves it to a directory, and importantly notes that OpenAlex 'relies on extracted pdf_url instead of direct downloads' and typically returns error messages. This adds useful behavioral context about potential limitations and return values, though it could elaborate more on failure modes or permissions.

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 efficiently structured with a brief purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though the Returns section could be slightly clearer. It's front-loaded with the main action, avoiding unnecessary fluff.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and return behavior, and the output schema handles return value details. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this versus siblings, which is a gap given the extensive list of alternatives.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'paper_id' as the OpenAlex paper ID and 'save_path' as the directory to save the PDF with a default. This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema, covering both parameters adequately, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., what constitutes a valid paper_id).

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 PDF') and target resource ('for a paper from OpenAlex'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its many sibling download tools (like download_arxiv, download_biorxiv, etc.) beyond mentioning OpenAlex as the source.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus the many alternative download tools in the sibling list. The description mentions OpenAlex as the source but doesn't explain when OpenAlex is appropriate compared to other sources like arXiv, PubMed, or SciHub, nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints.

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