text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Read' which implies non-destructive, but it doesn't mention how offset and max_chars affect behavior, whether there are rate limits, or what the output structure is (though an output schema exists, its content isn't disclosed here). No side effects or edge cases are described.

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 a single, concise sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and is easy to parse. However, it is so short that it sacrifices useful detail, but that's a completeness issue, not a conciseness one.

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 (3 parameters, one required) and the presence of an output schema, the description should at least clarify the parameters and the notion of 'page'. It doesn't explain pagination, what 'held paper' means, or any error conditions. The description is far from complete for an agent to call it correctly without additional inference.

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 explain the parameters, but it doesn't. It doesn't clarify what 'identifier' refers to (the paper ID), what 'offset' does (page offset or character offset?), or how 'max_chars' limits the returned text. The agent has to guess parameter meaning from names alone.

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 uses a clear verb ('Read') and specific resource ('a page of a held paper's machine-extracted full text'). It distinguishes from siblings like search or fetch by implying a direct text-retrieval operation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 siblings like fetch or search. It doesn't state prerequisites, such as needing an identifier from a prior search, nor does it explain when not to use it. The description leaves the selection decision entirely to the agent.

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