get_full_text

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: it returns chunks with next_offset and content hash, may incur archive download charges, falls back to candidate URLs on failure, and refuses to scrape arbitrary publisher sites. This gives the agent a realistic model of tool behavior.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: primary behavior, return format, failure fallback, and an explicit exclusion. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or schema fields.

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 multiple sources, conditional API key, failure behavior, and absence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the key behaviors needed to use the tool correctly)Skip: it does not fully document all parameter semantics, especially max_chars and offset, and it does not specify the shape of the returned chunks or candidate URLs. Still, this is a minor gap given annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 only 25%, so the description needs to compensate for the three undocumented parameters. It partially does—'from PMC BioC, or OpenAlex structured XML' maps to the source enum, and 'Returns chunks with next_offset' hints at pagination semantics. But offset, max_chars, and the precise way to configure the OpenAlex API key are not explained in the description.

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 operation ('Fetch readable article text'), identifies two distinct sources (PMC BioC and OpenAlex structured XML), and sets boundaries by saying what it does not do ('Does not scrape arbitrary publisher sites'). It is distinct from siblings like get_abstract and get_full_text_links, which are about abstracts and links respectively.

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 gives practical context: it mentions the API-key condition for OpenAlex, charges, and the fallback to web/PDF tools when retrieval fails. However, it never names sibling tools such as get_full_text_links or get_abstract, nor does it explicitly state when to choose this tool over those alternatives. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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