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. It discloses that the tool extracts plain text content from selected file formats, which is a behavioral trait, but it does not mention limitations (e.g., scanned PDFs, image-only documents) or how the content is returned. There is no contradiction with annotations since none exist.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the action. It includes the essential information about supported formats with no wasted words.

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 the low complexity (one well-documented parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the supported document types, which is the main contextual need, though it could briefly mention behavior for unsupported or missing files. Overall, it is sufficient without needing to explain return values due to the output schema.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'path' parameter with a detailed description and example. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'read', the resource 'document', and explicitly lists supported file types (PDF, DOCX, TXT). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gdrive_read_file, which reads from Google Drive, and list_documents, which lists documents rather than reading content.

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 usage for reading local documents but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like gdrive_read_file or search_documents. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the context implied rather than explicit.

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