Download paper PDF

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains failure behavior (fails clearly if no PDF), that it saves locally and returns the file path. It could mention overwriting behavior or permission issues, but overall it is fairly transparent for a simple download tool.

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 concise with no extraneous information. It front-loads the main action and provides necessary context in a few sentences.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers all key aspects: what it does, how it behaves on failure, what it returns, and how it differs from alternatives. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description adds little beyond the schema: it restates that id accepts a URL, and for dest_dir it mentions a default directory, which is already in the schema. Therefore, it meets the baseline of 3.

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 it downloads an open-access PDF from PhilArchive, saves it locally, and returns the file path. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_fulltext, which provides text directly.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (to download a PDF) and when not to (to get text directly, use get_fulltext). It also warns that it fails if no open-access PDF available, helping agents avoid misuse.

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