Pubmed Fetch Fulltext

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the fallback retrieval chain (PMC, Europe PMC, Unpaywall), which is useful behavioral context, but omits permissions/auth needs, rate limits, failure behavior when full text is unavailable, and whether the chain stops at first success.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and mechanism. It is efficient and has no filler, though it may be too terse given the lack of usage and behavioral detail.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the input schema is fully documented. However, with no annotations and a sibling pubmed_fetch, the definition should at least clarify when to choose this tool and what limitations (e.g., paywalls, availability) exist.

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 the PMID list (up to 10), max_sections (default 20), and sections_filter. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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 'Fetch' and resource 'full-text articles', and names the retrieval chain PMC → Europe PMC → Unpaywall. This distinguishes it from the sibling pubmed_fetch (which likely retrieves abstracts/metadata) without needing the schema.

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?

No guidance on when to use this over pubmed_fetch or other siblings. The description does not state conditions (e.g., 'use when you need full text and only have PMIDs') or exclusions.

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