laserfiche_document_get_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares the return shape, the untrusted-content wrapping, how char_count/truncated are computed relative to wrapping, the v2-only constraint, and enumerates distinct error slugs (no_extracted_text, not_found, method_not_allowed, server_error) with their meanings.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the v2 constraint, then organized into behavior, return shape, and errors. The error-slug enumeration is dense but each item adds diagnostic value; only marginal trimming is possible.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers everything the agent needs: version prerequisites, fallback, return fields, content-safety framing, and failure modes. Nothing material is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by clarifying that char_count/truncated are computed from the raw text before wrapping, which informs how max_chars behaves. entry_id semantics are left to the schema, which already says 'Entry ID of an electronic document.'

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Download a document's server-extracted text') and immediately scopes it to v2 servers. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling laserfiche_document_get_edoc and laserfiche_document_get_image by naming the edoc alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Use for reading a document's contents'), explains the extraction source, and provides a concrete fallback path for v1 servers ('use get_document_edoc(mode="text")'). Alternatives and exclusions are fully spelled out.

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