get_pdf_content

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the routing to sources, the extract_text behavior, and the content_source response field with its possible values. It does not fully enumerate all response fields, but the output schema covers that.

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?

Three dense sentences deliver purpose, routing, usage boundary, parameter behavior, and response contract. There is no filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 routing complexity, an output schema, and multiple annotations, the description covers the essential decisions: when to use, how to request inline text, and what primary response discriminator to expect. It could mention how the caller should consume the returned file path or PMCID, but the output schema likely handles that.

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 carry parameter meaning. It clearly explains extract_text's effect on output, and item_key is inferable as the paper identifier, but its format and provenance are not explicitly explained. Some improvement would be describing what an item_key is or how to obtain one.

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-resource pair ('Get the full text of a paper in the library') and immediately details the routing behavior across sources. It also distinguishes itself from get_item_attachments, making its purpose and scope unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('when the user wants to read a paper's content') and when not to ('to only CHECK whether a PDF exists', use get_item_attachments first). This direct alternative guidance leaves no ambiguity about selection.

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