read_crossref_paper

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool only 'attempts' to read (implying potential failure), it saves PDFs to a directory, and it returns a message indicating lack of support rather than actual content. This adds valuable context beyond basic functionality.

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 well-structured with sections for Args, Returns, and Note, making it easy to parse. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating the limitation in Note and Returns), but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, return behavior, and critical limitations. However, it could better explain the 'attempt' process or error handling for a tool with inherent constraints.

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 'paper_id' as a 'CrossRef DOI' with an example, and 'save_path' as a directory for PDF saving with a default. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it could detail format constraints more.

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 states 'Attempt to read and extract text content from a CrossRef paper,' which provides a clear verb ('read and extract') and resource ('CrossRef paper'). However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'read_arxiv_paper' beyond the source, and the purpose is somewhat vague due to the 'attempt' qualifier and later note about limitations.

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 states when not to use this tool: 'CrossRef is a citation database and doesn't provide direct paper content. Use the DOI to access the paper through the publisher's website.' This provides clear alternatives and exclusions, helping the agent avoid misuse.

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