get_full_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it only works for open-access articles and lists return contents, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior like error handling for non-PMC articles or rate limits. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, with the primary action and return info first, followed by the access constraint. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the schema fully covers parameters, and annotations cover the read-only nature. The description covers what it returns and the access limitation. It could mention the possibility of needing an open-access status check, but not strictly necessary.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters (pmid, pmcid, sections) are documented. The description adds no extra detail beyond 'articles available in PMC', and implicitly that both pmid and pmcid can be used but without specifics. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource (full text of an article), and the source (PubMed Central). It also lists what is returned (sections, captions, reference count), and notes a key constraint (only works for open-access articles in PMC). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_abstract and get_smpc.

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 'when to use' by noting it is for full text from PMC, and clearly states a limitation (only works for open-access articles). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives like get_abstract, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer.

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