get_paper_markdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose that the content is 'untrusted' scraped Markdown from ScrapingAnt and is 'bounded.' That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, but it does not explain permissions, failure behavior, rate limits, or what 'bounded' means in practice.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. The only weakness is that 'Explicitly' and 'bounded, untrusted' are compressed in a way that may require interpretation rather than clarifying the action immediately.

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 two-parameter retrieval tool with an enum and no output schema, the description covers the basic action and flags the untrusted scraped source. It is still incomplete because it does not explain when to choose this retrieval method, what 'bounded' means, or what the returned Markdown includes.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the platform enum and paperId formats. The description reinforces the platform scope by naming Publisher, Scholar, and Sci-Hub, but it adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific retrieval action and resource: fetching Markdown for a Publisher, Scholar, or Sci-Hub paper reference. It is distinguishable from the search_* siblings because it retrieves a known paper reference rather than searching. However, the phrasing 'bounded, untrusted ScrapingAnt Markdown' is jargon-heavy and does not clearly differentiate it from get_paper_by_doi or download_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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and never names alternatives such as get_paper_by_doi or download_paper. An agent must infer that this tool is for fetching Markdown content from a specific platform rather than for searching or downloading files.

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