read_fulltext

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that the response includes a source hash and a truncation flag, plus the OA-only limitation. It omits failure behavior for non-OA items, rate limits, and what happens when truncation occurs, so disclosure is partial.

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 tight sentence with the operation and source front-loaded and no filler; every clause conveys 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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description gives only a partial picture: it names the return elements but leaves error handling, non-OA behavior, and max_chars semantics unexplained.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. Mentioning 'truncation flag' loosely connects to max_chars (default 30000), but neither parameter's format, default, or effect is explained beyond that hint.

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 gives a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('OA full-text XML'), identifier ('by PMCID'), and source ('Europe PMC'), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_paper or verify_source_quote, which is the only gap.

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 'OA' qualifier implies this only works for open-access articles, which is a useful implicit constraint, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against get_paper (metadata) or search_literature. Usage context is inferable rather than stated.

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