add_local_paper

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real context beyond them: only PDF files are read, the text stays local and is never transmitted, and it returns a local: ID whose downstream tools only expose an outline and short passages. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure not present in the structured fields.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the privacy constraint, then the return/downstream contract. No filler, though the downstream-tool sentence front-loads the return value slightly before it is needed.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the return value (a local: ID) and how it feeds read_paper/match_quote. Privacy, file-type limits, and downstream behavior are covered; only edge cases such as duplicate additions or metadata-failure handling are left unaddressed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both 'path' and the optional 'id' (DOI/arXiv ID with auto-fill behavior). The description adds a constraint (only PDF files are accepted) that bears on the path parameter, but no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: add a user's local PDF to their football-docs library, and clarifies the scope is a PDF the user already has (e.g. from a subscription). This clearly separates it from remote-fetch siblings like search_papers/get_paper, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast against.

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 gives a concrete usage context ('a paper from their library's subscription') and names the downstream consumers (read_paper, match_quote), which implies when the tool is useful. However, it never states when NOT to use it or how it relates to alternative ingestion paths, leaving routing to inference.

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