get_paper_text

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

The annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds context about not downloading or parsing PDFs and the use of character offsets, which provides some behavioral detail beyond the annotations, but it does not cover other potential behaviors like error conditions or performance implications.

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 concise and to the point, consisting of three short sentences with no redundant or irrelevant information. It efficiently communicates the core function and key limitations without unnecessary elaboration.

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 is complete enough given the presence of an output schema. It covers the purpose, limitation (no page boundaries), and a key technical detail (character offsets). It does not mention error scenarios or return format, but those are not required when an output schema exists.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all five parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds a brief clarification about character offsets, which aids understanding of the offset parameter, but it does not elaborate on the other parameters (item_key, attachment_key, max_characters) beyond what is already in the schema.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('bounded text from Zotero's synchronized full-text endpoint'). It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it does not download or parse PDFs, making its 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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (search_papers, get_paper). The description mentions limitations (no page boundaries, character offsets) but does not state conditions under which this tool is preferable or when alternatives should be chosen.

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