has_fulltext

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by noting the result is 'likely' (probabilistic) and uses cheap metadata/landing-page signals. Annotations already declare read-only and open-world, so the description complements without contradiction.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted words.

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?

Given annotations and presence of output schema, the description is adequate for a simple probe tool. It could mention output type but is not necessary due to output schema.

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?

The lone required parameter 'query' has no description in schema or description text. With 0% schema coverage, the description should clarify its format (e.g., DOI, title), but does not.

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 clearly states the tool probes whether a paper has accessible full text, using cheap metadata and landing-page signals. It distinguishes from siblings like fetch_paper by emphasizing low cost and probabilistic nature.

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 use as a preliminary cheap check before fetching full text, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives. Sibling names suggest the probe is a first step.

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