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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses the 12-page limit, the required citation format, the verification rule that quotes must actually appear on the cited page, and the factual-only nature of the content. These are non-obvious behavioral constraints an agent needs before calling.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the core function, add the critical citation rule, and finish with content-boundary context. No word is wasted and every sentence adds operational value.

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 simple read-only tool with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states the payload, the constraint, and the return expectation. The only minor gap is that page_to is optional in the schema but the description consistently describes a 'page range', leaving single-page behavior implicit.

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 applies; the schema already documents doc_id, page_from as 1-based, and page_to with the 12-page maximum. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond reinforcing the page-range limit and the quote rule.

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: it returns the actual text of a page range, capped at 12 pages. It also differentiates itself by declaring itself the only source from which quotes may be taken, distinguishing it from document-level siblings like doc_contents.

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 a clear conditional: use this tool whenever you need a verbatim quote from a document, and it states that quotes must be verified against the returned text. It does not explicitly name alternatives or enumerate when not to use it, but the 'ONLY source' phrasing provides strong routing.

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