Read arXiv paper full text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds genuinely new behavior: the HTML-first/PDF-fallback extraction path and the paged-truncation model. It stops short of noting rate limits or extraction quality caveats.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one operational caveat an agent must know. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the `truncated` and `next_offset` fields an agent will see in the response, which is otherwise undocumented. Complete enough to call correctly, though the unexplained field names could cause brief confusion on first response.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds paging workflow semantics the schema lacks: how truncation connects to continuing via offset. Minor friction from naming `truncated` and `next_offset`, fields not present in the input schema, though it explains mapping next_offset to offset.

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 specific verb and resource ("Return the full text of an arXiv paper") plus the output format ("as plain text") and the source fallback (HTML rendering, otherwise PDF). This clearly separates it from sibling arxiv_get_paper, which an agent can infer serves paper metadata.

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?

Usage guidance is limited to the paging case: check `truncated` and pass `next_offset` as `offset`. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to arxiv_get_paper or biorxiv_get_full_text, so the agent must infer that full text is for deep reading rather than metadata lookup.

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