browse_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it retrieves transcriptions in Swedish, includes links to original images and ALTO XML, supports various page specifications, and notes transcriptions are as they appear historically. It lacks details on rate limits or error handling, but covers core operational traits well.

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 front-loaded with core purpose but includes verbose sections like 'Key features' and 'Examples' that repeat information. Sentences like 'Download some of the nearby pages too...' are ambiguous and could be trimmed. It's informative but not optimally concise, with some redundancy.

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?

Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description does well. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and examples thoroughly. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description appropriately focuses on input and behavior. Minor gaps in error handling or limits keep it from a perfect score.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides detailed semantics for all parameters: explains 'reference_code' format with examples, describes 'pages' syntax for single/range/multiple, clarifies 'highlight_term' as optional keyword highlighting, and specifies 'max_pages' default and purpose. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose: 'Browse specific pages of a document by reference code and view full transcriptions.' It specifies the verb ('browse'), resource ('document pages'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_transcribed' by emphasizing complete page content rather than search snippets.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this tool when you need complete page content rather than just search snippets.' This directly contrasts with the sibling tool 'search_transcribed' (implied to provide snippets), offering clear alternatives and context for selection.

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