read_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 explicitly states the truncation behavior, the guarantee that the full document is never returned unless it fits within max_chars, and the response metadata (total_chars, truncated, next_char_start/next_page) when clipped. This is strong, concrete behavioral detail.

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 tightly scoped sentences with the primary action front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: the return type and source, the critical size limitation, and the response navigation contract.

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 output schema covers return-value details, and the description provides solid behavioral context. However, the 6-parameter schema has zero description coverage and the description compensates only for max_chars, so an agent still lacks sufficient guidance on pagination/range parameters and how this tool compares to siblings.

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% across 6 parameters, and the description only adds meaning for max_chars. It does not explain pages, char_start, char_end, accession_number, or filename, leaving key range-selection and document-identification semantics undocumented.

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 'Return bounded plain text from a cached filing attachment,' which names a specific verb, resource, and scope. The 'Never returns the full document' constraint clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_filing_text, which likely returns complete document text.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need bounded plain text from a cached filing attachment. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so the agent must infer routing decisions from sibling names and the bounded-text behavior.

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