resolve_fulltext_access

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the tiered routing strategy and the institutional WebVPN fallback, which is genuine behavioral context. However, it never says whether anything is actually fetched or just planned, whether credentials/institutional access are required, or how failures are reported.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded. The long parenthetical of routing tiers is dense and 'scansci-inspired' is internal jargon, but the list still conveys real information about behavior.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about what comes back (per-record routes? a plan object?) and about the undocumented recordIds parameter. It is adequate to get an agent pointed in the right direction but leaves meaningful gaps for a 4-parameter tool with zero structured behavioral metadata.

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 75%, so the schema documents briefId, verdict, and searchId adequately, and the description only reinforces the verdict default. recordIds has no schema description and no mention in the description, leaving its cap of 200 unexplained. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the work.

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: 'Resolve optimal full-text PDF acquisition routes for screened literature,' and enumerates the routing tiers (OA/CDN, Elsevier API, IEEE Xplore, Springer TDM, WebVPN). An agent can tell this is an access-planning step rather than a download step, though it never contrasts itself with the closely related sibling discover_paper_access or download_paper.

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 only usage guidance is that it defaults to verdict=include 'to target core screened papers,' which implies it is meant for post-screening workflows. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus discover_paper_access, download_paper, or search_scihub, all of which sit in the same access-resolution space.

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