get_fulltext

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

The description includes a cache-first behavior note, which is helpful. However, with no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose other behavioral traits such as permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The tool likely performs a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 single sentence with no superfluous words. It directly states the output and a key behavioral note. Perfectly front-loaded.

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 description covers what the tool returns (full text, footnotes, original text) and its cache behavior. However, it lacks parameter explanation and output schema information. For a single-parameter tool, this is adequate but incomplete.

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 only parameter 'data_id' is not described in the text. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema field name. The agent has no guidance on what value to provide (e.g., format, source).

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 returns full text, footnotes, and original text of an article. It uses a specific verb 'return' and specifies the resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_translation' or 'search_db', and the Korean language may reduce clarity for non-Korean agents.

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 versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios. The agent is left to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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