Get Paper PDF

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the fallback order (Semantic Scholar first, then PhilArchive), which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention what happens when no PDF is found, access restrictions, or rate limits, leaving important behavioral gaps.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and no filler. It earns its place by adding the fallback detail without unnecessary length.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what it does and the fallback behavior. It could be more complete by explicitly distinguishing from download_paper or stating failure behavior, but the tool's simplicity keeps it largely sufficient.

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 schema covers 100% of parameter details, describing paper_id as an 'S2 ID, DOI, or PhilArchive ID'. The description does not add any additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get PDF URL for a paper' with a specific verb (get) and resource (PDF URL). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_paper (metadata) and download_paper (actual download) by focusing on URL retrieval, and adds precision with the fallback logic between Semantic Scholar and PhilArchive.

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 usage when a PDF URL is needed and provides clear context about the fallback order. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the primary use case is unambiguous.

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