Get Paper Full Text

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

The description discloses the fetch order (arXiv HTML5 → gomcp browser → abstract-only fallback), character limit, return fields (title, abstract, tldr, fulltext, etc.), and source, adding significant value beyond the annotations which only state readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld hints.

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, and the fetch order and return structure are clearly presented. It is not excessively long, though it could be slightly more concise by removing the 'Args' and 'Returns' lines that duplicate schema info.

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 existence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return fields and error format. It covers the fetch order and fallback behavior, making the tool's behavior complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, with a detailed description and example in the schema. The tool description only restates the parameter without adding new semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves the full text of a paper by title, with a character limit. It lists the specific verb-resource pattern and distinguishes itself from siblings like paper_get_pdf and paper_get_metadata by focusing on full text.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. It implies usage for full-text retrieval but provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives for PDF or metadata.

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