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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that results are paginated by passage and that non-indexed works yield a pointer to find the open-access URL elsewhere. This adds meaningful behavioral context, though the exact pointer format is not specified.

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?

Two tightly written sentences cover purpose, pagination behavior, and the fallback path without redundancy. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 key-based retrieval tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It explains how to page, what happens for non-indexed papers, and where to go for alternatives.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly linking from_seq and max_passages to the paging mechanism and by giving a realistic corpus key example, going slightly beyond the schema's individual parameter notes.

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 a specific verb and resource: returning the full text of an indexed open-access paper by corpus key. It clearly distinguishes this retrieval tool from search-oriented siblings by emphasizing key-based lookup and pagination by passage.

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 practical usage guidance: use from_seq and max_passages for paging, and explicitly routes the non-indexed case to paper_search / paper_details. It does not directly compare against paper_fulltext_search, leaving some sibling differentiation implicit.

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