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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: 25k-character pagination via next_offset, keyword excerpts of about 2000 characters, accent-insensitive matching, and capped excerpt behavior indicated by match_count versus excerpts_returned.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then the alternate mode. It contains no filler and every clause contributes operational information.

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 5-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the key modes, pagination flow, excerpt sizing, and result-limit concept. It is slightly incomplete because publication_id semantics and exact response field behavior are not fully explained.

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 60%, so the schema already documents offset, max_excerpts, and context_chars. The description adds meaning for keyword matching and pagination, but publication_id remains undocumented and the exact cap mechanics are only referenced indirectly.

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: retrieves full OCR text of a publication, with clear paged full-text and keyword-excerpt modes. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling retrieval tools such as get_document or get_article, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 implies when each mode applies: use offset paging for full text, or keyword for excerpts around matches. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus search_publications or other retrieval siblings, nor does it state exclusions.

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