get_full_text_links

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: ordering by best open-access copy, inclusion of license/version/access metadata and archive URLs, and the non-guarantee of availability. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each conveying essential information: what is returned, how results are ordered, and how the agent should use the output. No filler or redundancy.

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 covers the return content (URLs, metadata, archive links), ordering, and caveats. Since there is no output schema, this is sufficient for a simple one-parameter tool. Minor omissions like pagination or result limits are not critical given the tool's scope.

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 coverage is 100%, and the `id` parameter is already well-described in the schema with accepted identifier formats. The description does not add further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return potential full-text PDF and article URLs from OpenAlex.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling get_full_text by emphasizing URLs/links rather than content, and adds ordering and metadata details.

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 gives actionable guidance: 'Use your web tools to fetch publisher or repository links' and warns availability is not guaranteed. It clearly implies this tool returns links for fetching rather than content, though it does not explicitly name get_full_text as the alternative for full-text content.

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