get_full_text_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool extracts text from OA sources, supports page ranges, and can return large strings. However, it does not mention error handling, authentication, or rate limits, leaving gaps.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: the use case, page range help, and a warning. No redundancy or filler.

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 tool has 3 parameters and no annotations but has an output schema (not shown). The description covers the main behavior and parameter usage. Missing details like error responses or size limits, but adequate for a straightforward extraction tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the url parameter as 'Open Access PDF or HTML page' and describes start_page/end_page as 1-indexed for specific page extraction. This adds meaningful context, though the url description is minimal.

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 extracts full text from an OA PDF or HTML page given a URL. It specifies a use case after search_papers_openalex. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool get_full_text_visual_tool, missing a 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 explains when to use (after finding an OA PDF link) and provides guidance on start_page/end_page usage. It includes a warning about large strings. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but gives clear context.

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