read_document

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses important behaviors: use of pdftotext with OCR fallback for scans, paragraph/table extraction in Word, tag stripping in HTML. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 well-structured: concise purpose statement, bulleted format list, sample prompts, and argument definition. Front-loaded with key information, no wasted sentences.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's capabilities. It explains supported formats and argument semantics, though it could optionally mention error handling or encoding details.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's 'Args' section defines 'file_path' as 'Absolute path to the document file,' adding necessary semantics for the single parameter.

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 tool reads and extracts text from documents, lists supported formats (PDF, Word, plain text, HTML), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'ocr_image' which handles images. It is specific with verb and resource.

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 provides clear usage context through sample prompts and format listings, implicitly guiding when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternative tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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