read_openalex_paper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals the tool's key behavioral trait: it returns a message indicating 'direct paper reading is not supported natively,' which is crucial context. However, it doesn't disclose what the tool actually does (e.g., downloads a PDF, attempts extraction, or just returns an error), permissions needed, rate limits, or side effects like saving files.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though the return statement could be more concise. No wasted sentences, but the return message is somewhat verbose.

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 complexity (involves reading/extraction with a non-native limitation), no annotations, and an output schema that only specifies a string return, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool actually does operationally, error conditions, or how it relates to sibling tools, making it hard for an agent to use effectively.

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 adds basic meaning for both parameters: 'paper_id' as an OpenAlex ID and 'save_path' as a directory for PDF saving with a default. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., ID structure, path requirements) or interactions, leaving gaps despite the low schema coverage.

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 the purpose ('read and extract text content from an OpenAlex paper'), which is clear but vague about what 'read and extract' entails. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'OpenAlex' source, but doesn't clarify how it differs from other 'read_*_paper' tools beyond the data 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'download_openalex' or other 'read_*_paper' tools. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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