get_fulltext

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so richly: it discloses the provider waterfall, version naming, provenance, that full body is written to disk (never returned inline), and includes a ToS note about non-commercial use and redistribution restrictions. This is exceptional behavioral context.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and waterfall, then returns and ToS note. It's dense but every sentence adds value. Slightly long but appropriate given the complexity.

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?

No output schema, so description must explain returns – it does (provenance, character count, file path, sample) and notes the full body is on disk. Complete for a complex retrieval tool, though it could specify error handling or rate limits.

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 includes descriptions for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions the waterfall tiers but doesn't add syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Retrieve the full text of a paper' and it names the retrieval mechanism (provider waterfall). Clearly distinguishes itself from search_fulltext (which likely searches within text) and get_abstract_details (abstract 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?

Explains the waterfall tiers and the 'prefer' parameter for skipping tiers, which implies when to use. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over get_abstract_details or search_fulltext, though the full-text vs abstract distinction is implied.

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