get_full_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation retrieves full text and offers section filtering to reduce token usage, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention response format, error handling, or rate limits, leaving some gaps typical of a read operation.

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 a brief two-sentence definition that front-loads the core functionality and adds only one additional feature. It is succinct and to the point, with no redundant content.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential 'what' and hints at a key usage trait (section filtering). It lacks explicit statements about output format or relationship to siblings, but given the simplicity, it is mostly complete.

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 input schema provides detailed descriptions for both parameters, covering PMIC ID format and section options. The description adds no further parameter semantics; its mention of token usage is already in the schema. Given high schema coverage, the baseline of 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 the tool retrieves full text from PMC by PMC ID, specifying the verb and resource. It also mentions section filtering, which adds purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fetch or fetch_batch, so it does not achieve a perfect 5.

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 when full text from PMC is needed, and the section filtering note suggests a use case for reducing token usage. However, there is no explicit comparison to alternatives or exclusion criteria, leaving the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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