Get Item Fulltext

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing that it returns indexed text, not the original PDF, and explaining pagination response fields (hasMore, nextOffset). It does not mention potential side effects or auth requirements, but as a read-only retrieval tool this is not a major gap.

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 concise, using four focused bullet points. Each sentence adds distinct value: primary purpose, pagination, return type, and alternative tool. 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?

For a retrieval tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned, how pagination works, and when to use an alternative. It covers the key aspects needed for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that offset/limit enable pagination and that the response includes hasMore/nextOffset, which complements the schema's basic parameter descriptions. It also clarifies the nature of the returned content.

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 'Get the full-text content of an item (usually a PDF attachment)', specifying the verb, resource, and typical use case. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with download_attachment for obtaining the actual PDF file.

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 gives clear usage context: it describes pagination for large documents and explicitly directs users to download_attachment when they need the actual PDF file. This provides both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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