Get a paper's full text

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains that retrieval depends on availability in PubMed Central, describes fallback behavior (returning messages with explanations), and mentions alternative sources like DOI. This enhances transparency beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavioral details and example usage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (fetching full text with fallbacks), the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage, behavior, and output scenarios. With an output schema present, it appropriately omits detailed return value explanations, focusing on high-level outcomes like success/failure messages.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining that the 'pmid' parameter is used to identify the PubMed article. However, it does not provide additional details like format constraints or examples beyond the basic usage. With one parameter and no schema descriptions, the baseline is met but not exceeded.

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 specific action ('retrieve the complete text') and resource ('PubMed article using its ID'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'search_pubmed' which likely searches rather than fetches full text. It explicitly mentions PubMed Central as the source, adding specificity.

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 on when to use this tool (to get full text of a PubMed article by ID) and implies when not to use it (if you need to search, use 'search_pubmed'). However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or detail exclusions, such as handling non-PubMed IDs.

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