has_fulltext

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds useful context about using cheap metadata and landing-page signals, and the word 'likely' reinforces the open-world nature. No 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that captures the tool's purpose and method with 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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description adequately covers what the tool does and its behavioral traits. The missing parameter documentation is a minor gap, but overall the tool's action and use case are clear.

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 only parameter 'query' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explain its format or expected values (e.g., DOI, title). This is a significant gap for a single parameter.

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 likely has full text using cheap metadata and landing-page signals. It uses specific verb 'probe' and resource 'paper full text', distinguishing it from siblings like fetch_paper which retrieve full text.

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 provides clear context that the tool is a cheap preliminary check, implying it should be used before more expensive fetches. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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