get_fulltext

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful trait, that the returned text is truncated, but it omits everything else: no mention of the max_chars cap interaction, no auth or error behavior, and no note on what happens when no full text is stored.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness is arguably the source of the coverage gaps rather than a virtue here.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated. But for a two-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage and zero annotations, the description is far too thin: an agent still cannot tell how truncation is controlled or how this differs from the sibling full-text search 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 description coverage is 0% and neither parameter is explained in the description. The word 'truncated' hints at a length limit but never connects it to max_chars (default 20000) or clarifies that paper_id is the lookup key, so the description adds no semantic value over the bare schema.

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 clear verb and resource ('Return stored full text'), so an agent knows this retrieves content. However, it never explains that retrieval is keyed by paper_id, nor does it distinguish itself from the sibling search_fulltext or get_paper, so the purpose is only loosely delineated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no statement of when to pick this over search_fulltext or get_paper, and no prerequisites. The only implied usage is that a paper must already be identified.

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