test_fulltext

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only, does not modify settings, probes multiple Sci-Hub mirrors, may perform EZProxy login, and returns configuration guidance when EZProxy is not configured. It does not describe failure output or timeout behavior, but it is substantially transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core intent and safety guarantee, followed by compact scannable bullets. Every line adds operational detail and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 moderately complex diagnostic tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers both fallback channels, their probe sequences, legal caution, and unconfigured behavior. It does not describe the exact return shape, but it provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 must compensate. It explains the scihub and ezproxy booleans and mentions DOI usage in prose, but it never defines the timeout parameter or the doi format/default behavior. Partial compensation only.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: testing the availability of full-text fallback channels, then enumerates the two concrete modes (scihub, ezproxy). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_paper or execute_research and is not a tautology.

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 clearly frames the tool as a read-only diagnostic probe and explicitly says it 'only diagnoses connectivity', which tells an agent when to consider it. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full alternative-based guidance.

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