get_full_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: authentication requirements for paywalled content and output truncation at ~50K characters, which are critical for agent decision-making. It doesn't cover all possible behaviors (e.g., error handling), but adds substantial value beyond basic purpose.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential constraints and behavioral notes in three concise sentences. Every sentence earns its place by adding critical information without redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage guidelines, key behaviors, and output constraints. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit mention of error cases), but it provides sufficient context for effective agent use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'article_number' parameter. The description implies the parameter's role but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 full text'), resource ('IEEE paper'), and key constraint ('by article number'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle citations, details, or searches. It provides precise differentiation without being vague or tautological.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('Works for Open Access articles') and when-not/alternatives ('For paywalled articles, set IEEE_AUTH_TOKEN env var'), providing clear context and prerequisites. This directly addresses usage scenarios without leaving room for ambiguity.

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