get_paper_full_text

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) already indicate a safe, potentially varying read operation. The description adds that output is markdown only when the API provides it, which is a useful behavioral clue beyond the 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?

The description consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first defines the core action, and the second adds a key qualifier, with no redundant information.

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?

While the output schema covers return values, the description omits parameter semantics and usage context. For a simple tool with two parameters, the description is adequate but leaves notable gaps, such as the role of api_email.

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 0%, and the description only mentions 'by paper ID' for paper_id, ignoring api_email entirely. It fails to explain the purpose or constraints of either parameter, leaving the agent uninformed despite the need for compensation.

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 retrieves full text for a ChinaRxiv paper using a paper ID, distinguishing it from siblings like download_paper_pdf (PDF format) and get_paper_detail (metadata only).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or sibling comparisons, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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