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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only/idempotent/open-world profile, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: output is paginated by passage, and non-indexed works return a pointer rather than an error. That pointer-vs-text behavior is genuinely useful and not derivable from annotations or schema.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: purpose first, paging mechanics second, edge case third. Every sentence carries distinct information and the core purpose 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?

With no output schema, the description partially covers returns (paginated passages, or a pointer for unindexed works), which is the key thing an agent needs. It stops short of describing the exact response shape (passage sequence numbering, how to detect the end of pagination), a minor gap for this complexity level.

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 all three parameters are fully self-documenting. The description reinforces the intent of from_seq + max_passages for paging but adds no syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already states (0-based, default, max 200). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Return the full text'), a specific resource ('indexed open-access paper'), and the identifying input format with a concrete example ('arxiv:2310.12345'). It also distinguishes itself from paper_search/paper_details by noting those are the fallback for non-indexed works, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear guidance: use from_seq + max_passages to page, and use paper_search/paper_details when the work isn't indexed locally. This names alternatives and the condition that selects them. It does not, however, contrast itself against the sibling paper_fulltext_search, which an agent might reasonably confuse with this tool.

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