search_fulltext

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the auth/access requirement, the publisher-scope restriction, the result cap (1000), the side effect that over 50 results are written to JSON and CSV, and the resource-intensive meaning of context=true (one full-text request per analyzed article). This is unusually rich disclosure for an unannotated tool.

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-loaded with purpose and the not-titles/abstracts distinction, then the access prerequisite, then the context behavior. Sentences are dense but each conveys a distinct fact; the context=true explanation is slightly verbose but justified by the tool's 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?

For a 9-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by stating the result cap and the JSON/CSV output behavior for large result sets, and by explaining what context=true returns. Remaining gaps are the undocumented filters (open_access_only, sort semantics), but the core calling contract is 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?

Schema coverage is 78%, so the schema already documents most parameters, and the description largely restates the query-syntax guidance rather than adding new meaning. It does clarify context=true's purpose ('retrieve top results' full texts to count mentions') and the 1000-result cap, but leaves sort, journal, year filters and open_access_only (which has no schema description) unaddressed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (search the full text of Elsevier/ScienceDirect journal articles) and immediately scopes it against the obvious alternatives by saying 'not just titles and abstracts'. An agent can distinguish this from search_scopus and get_fulltext without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear use case – finding papers that use a construct in their body without naming it up front – plus prerequisites (subscriber access) and coverage limits (Elsevier only). It does not explicitly name a sibling to use instead when those conditions fail, so it falls short of a 5.

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