get_content_variant

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses useful traits: best-variant resolution order (HTML first, then PDF markdown), provenance metadata in the response, and license restrictions for non-abstract variants. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'Get' and the content-focused language.

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 front-loaded and each sentence adds value: main purpose, variant behavior, valid values, provenance metadata, and licensing. There is minor redundancy between 'Get paper content' and 'Retrieves paper content', but the overall structure is tight and scannable.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical operational details: supported variants, default behavior, fallback order, provenance, and licensing. Formatting details for arxiv_id and explicit error behavior are absent, but these are minor for a tool this straightforward.

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 for the bare input schema. It thoroughly explains the variant parameter, including all valid values, the default, and the fallback behavior. The arxiv_id parameter is left to its self-evident name and the surrounding context, which is sufficient for a straightforward identifier.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get paper content at the requested fidelity level.' It then enumerates exact content types (abstract, HTML, PDF-derived markdown) and distinguishes this from the sibling get_paper by focusing on content variants rather than paper metadata or search.

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 gives clear guidance on which variant to choose ('Use variant='best' (default)') and lists valid variants, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_paper or search_papers. Usage context is mostly implied by the tool's name and description.

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