read_pages

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation and does not mention return format, page range validation, error handling, or limitations. This leaves the agent without expected behavior details.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no unnecessary words or content, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool is simple and the parameter schema is clear, but there are no annotations, no output schema, and no elaboration on behavior or usage. The description covers the basic function but leaves gaps in behavioral context and alternative guidance, making it only minimally complete.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, only referencing 'specific pages' which aligns with start_page and end_page. It does not compensate for any missing parameter context.

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 action ('Read text content') and the resource ('specific pages of a PDF file'), which gives a precise scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like read_pdf, though the 'specific pages' qualifier helps infer the differentiation.

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 implies the tool is for reading text from selected pages, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., read_pdf for full documents, search_in_pdf for searching). No excluded scenarios or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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