Fetch Full Text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds significant behavioral context beyond that: character limits for each mode, number of table captions, coverage percentage, and expected latency ('may take a few seconds'). This provides a comprehensive understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 four sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or vague phrases. It efficiently covers purpose, modes, specifics, coverage stats, and performance.

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 moderate complexity (two modes, character limits, table captions) and the presence of an output schema (so return values are handled elsewhere), the description is complete. It addresses parameters, behavior, limitations (coverage percentage), and timing, leaving no major gaps.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters described in schema). The description adds meaning by specifying the default value for 'sections' ('results'), providing details on returned characters and table captions per mode, and clarifying the content of each mode. This goes beyond the schema's enum values.

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 verb 'Extract' and the resource 'paper content from an arXiv paper's LaTeX source', making the purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are about collections, watches, searches, and other operations, not content extraction.

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 explains two modes with specific use cases ('results' for lean results, 'all' for full paper) and mentions that ~62% of arXiv papers have LaTeX source, implying when the tool may not work. However, it does not explicitly exclude other use cases or mention alternatives, so a 4 is appropriate.

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