read_document

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

The description reveals that it uses installed libraries and handles local or remote documents, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose failure modes, what happens with unsupported formats, or side effects, and with no annotations the description carries the full burden.

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 brief and front-loaded: it states the supported formats and the key input in the first sentence. The second sentence adds useful implementation context (libraries) without unnecessary 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 simple document-reading tool this is nearly adequate, but it leaves parameter semantics and usage guidance incomplete. The output schema likely covers return values, so that omission is not critical, but max_chars is not described and no alternatives are listed.

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 has 0% description coverage for its parameters. The description explains 'source' as URL or local path, but it does not mention the behavior of max_chars, its default, or how it affects output. With one of two parameters completely undocumented, this is only partially helpful.

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 extracts text from PDF/DOCX/XLSX files and specifies the source format (URL or local path). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fetch_page or web_search, which handle web 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?

It implies when to use the tool (for document files) and describes the source parameter, but it provides no explicit guidance about alternatives or exclusions. The reader must infer that it is not for HTML pages or general web content.

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