Read Paper

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination, the storage path, shared access with arxiv-mcp-server, and error behavior when the paper is missing. It does not cover return format beyond 'markdown text', which is acceptable for a read operation.

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?

Three tightly worded sentences lead with the core purpose, then pagination, then storage/error context. No redundant information; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's purpose, prerequisite (download_paper), pagination mechanism, storage location, and error handling. Given no output schema and no annotations, this is complete for a simple read operation.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% with per-parameter descriptions, the tool description adds meaning by explaining paper_id as a slug returned by download_paper and that start/max_chars control pagination. This enriches the schema's basic descriptions.

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 tool reads back the markdown text of a paper previously stored by download_paper. This is a specific verb (read) and resource (stored paper markdown), and it clearly differentiates from siblings like get_paper or get_pdf by requiring prior storage.

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?

It explicitly states the tool operates on papers previously stored by download_paper and that an error is returned asking to download_paper first if not stored. This gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like get_paper.

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