Get document page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses constraints like 'approved document' and 'in reading order', which imply read-only behavior. However, it does not mention error cases or limitations (e.g., what happens if the page is out of range), leaving some gaps.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the usage context. Every word adds value with no redundant detail.

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 moderately simple read tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage, and key constraints. It could be slightly more detailed about the chunk format or error behavior, but it is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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 only 33% (only pdf_page has a description). The description does not add any information about course_id or document_type, which are required parameters. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to explain these parameters or their roles.

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 uses a specific verb 'returns' and names the exact resource ('every chunk on one PDF page of one approved document') and scope ('in reading order'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_source_chunk, which likely returns a single chunk, and search_course_content, which searches.

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 explicitly states two concrete use cases: 'to widen context around a search hit' and 'to read a page a citation points at'. This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool, though alternatives are not named explicitly.

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