get_full_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and successfully discloses dual-output behavior (full text with structure 'title, abstract, and body sections' vs 'helpful message with links'), and the PMC open-access constraint. Lacks mention of rate limits, caching, or authentication requirements.

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?

Uses standard docstring format (Args/Returns) that is appropriate for the documentation burden. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose: capability statement, constraint warning, fallback behavior, parameter definition, and return value specification. No 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 single-parameter tool with conditional output logic, the description is comprehensive. It explains the parameter (since schema fails to), documents both success and failure response patterns, and clarifies content scope (PMC open-access only) without needing to duplicate the output schema structure.

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?

Compensates effectively for 0% schema description coverage by defining the 'pmid' parameter as 'The PubMed ID of the article,' providing essential semantic mapping. Would benefit from format hints (e.g., numeric string) or validation constraints to achieve a 5.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('full text of an article from PubMed Central'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_article' (likely metadata) and 'search_pubmed' (discovery). The 'if available' qualifier immediately signals the conditional nature of this operation.

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 defines scope limitations ('Only open-access articles archived in PMC') and failure mode behavior ('Subscription-only articles will return a link'), guiding users on when the tool will and won't return full text. Lacks explicit cross-reference to sibling tools (e.g., 'use get_article for metadata-only retrieval').

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