read_paper_fulltext

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 mentions the output format (segmented text) and a continuation position, but does not disclose important traits such as authentication dependency, potential failure cases (unauthorized papers), rate limits, or side effects.

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 extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose and key output context. Every word is functional, and the critical information is front-loaded.

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 (pagination, authorization) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic usage. However, it omits contextual details such as the need for prior login (via get_login_status), how to use the continuation position to iterate, and that only institution-authorized papers are accessible.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds value by linking the 'paper' parameter to a sibling tool's field ('label from search_cnki') and hinting at pagination via 'segmented text' and 'continuation position', but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond 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 action ('reads institution-authorized CNKI online full text'), output ('returns segmented text and continuation reading position'), and context ('external research material'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like download_paper_pdf and get_paper_detail by specifying the text-based, segmented reading capability.

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 implies usage for reading full text but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., download_paper_pdf for PDF, search_cnki for searching). No 'when not to use' or prerequisites like authentication are mentioned.

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