get_full_content_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only retrieval but does not disclose authentication needs, error behavior, rate limits, content limitations, or any side effects. The only added behavioral context is that arguments come from the search result hint, which is more parameter guidance than behavior.

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 no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the usage guidance and parameter sourcing are each given their own concise sentence.

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 low-complexity retrieval tool with an output schema and two self-descriptive parameters, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and where to get the inputs. The main missing pieces are behavioral caveats, but the presence of an output schema covers return-value structure.

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 the description names both parameters and explains where to obtain their values ('provided in the search result's tool hint'). The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify version format, constraints, or edge cases beyond the names.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve the full content of a document by its URL and version.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by stating it is for pages returned in search results, not for searching or listing libraries.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use this tool when you need to see the complete content of a page that was returned in search results.' It also points the agent to the search result's tool hint for the URL and version. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context makes the intended placement clear.

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