get_fulltext

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description discloses caching behavior, page separator format, and scanned-PDF status 'no_text'. This adds substantive behavioral detail that an agent would not otherwise know.

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 three focused sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by cache behavior, pagination, page markers, and a failure mode. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the main call path, paging, cache behavior, and scanned-PDF status, and the output schema exists so return values need no explanation. However, the behavior of 'refresh' and 'max_chars' is not explained, so the description is not fully complete for all parameters.

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 'offset' for paging, but does not clarify 'refresh' or 'max_chars'; 'id' is only implied by 'the report's PDF'. The description adds some meaning but leaves several parameter semantics undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve', 'extract') and a specific resource ('the report's PDF on ROSA-P'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like search_fulltext or get_report. The exact scope of the tool is immediately understandable.

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 gives clear operational context: paging long documents with offset, local caching, and special handling for scanned PDFs. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions ('use search_fulltext instead'), but the use case is clear enough for an agent.

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