get_page_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so well: it discloses the processed-document prerequisite, the requirement to avoid whole-document requests, and a return-value behavior (embedded image paths feed into get_document_image()). It does not specify error behavior or the exact content format returned, but the key operational traits are surfaced.

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 sentences, all valuable, with the most important guidance ('tight, targeted page ranges', 'never the whole document') front-loaded. There is no filler, repetition of schema, or unnecessary context.

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 tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description plus schema gives an agent enough to select and invoke it correctly: purpose, page-range constraints, workflow for large documents, and image-path integration are all present. Minor gaps such as exact response format and failure behavior keep it from a 5.

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 coverage is 75%, so most parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the meaning of 'pages' with the targeted-range guidance, but it adds little about folder_id or wait_for_completion beyond what the schema already states. The undocumented folder_id field is not compensated for in the description.

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 names a specific verb ('Extract'), a resource ('page content'), and an important qualifier ('from a processed document'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly routing embedded image paths to get_document_image() and advising get_document_structure() for large documents, so an agent can tell it apart from get_document, get_document_structure, and get_document_image.

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 gives explicit, actionable usage direction: use tight, targeted page ranges, never the whole document, and call get_document_structure() first for documents over 20 pages. It names the recommended sibling and the condition that triggers it, leaving no ambiguity about when or how to invoke this tool.

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