Download Paper

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the storage path and environment variable override, the multi-step behavior, the returned paper_id for read_paper, and the significant limitation that PhilArchive PDFs are not fetched due to Cloudflare. This exceeds typical descriptions and provides actionable transparency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each clause earns its place: the storage path, return value for read_paper, and PhilArchive exception all add critical context. No wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete enough: it explains what it does, side effects (storage), return value (paper_id), and a key edge case (PhilArchive). It also hints at integration with read_paper. Given the complexity, this is a well-rounded description.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (paper_id and title). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific multi-step action: resolve an open-access PDF, fetch it, extract text, store as markdown, and return a paper_id slug. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_pdf (just PDF retrieval) and read_paper (reads stored markdown) by describing the local storage and integration with read_paper.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you want a paper downloaded, processed, and stored for later reading via read_paper. It explicitly covers the PhilArchive exception (browser-only, return URL instead of fetching), providing alternative handling. It does not fully contrast with sibling tools like get_pdf, but the context is clear enough.

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