Чтение документа

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses real operational constraints: local paths are restricted to the server download directory populated by session_download, and arbitrary paths require the CAMOUFOX_ALLOW_ANY_PATH=1 gate. It also notes that old .doc/.xls formats fail and output is truncated at max_chars. This is substantial context, though permission/auth details for remote URLs are not covered.

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 КОГДА/ЧТО/НЕ front-loading is efficient and scannable, and every block earns its place. The parenthetical library names and format-conversion aside add density that a reader must parse, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value description is unnecessary, and the description covers the remaining gaps: input constraints, path restrictions, format limitations, and the cheaper alternative for HTML. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: 'source' is defined as a URL or local path with the directory restriction, and max_chars is framed as the truncation ceiling (default 6000 implied by schema). It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not describe accepted URL schemes or path syntax in detail.

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 'ЧТО' (WHAT) block states a specific verb and resource: extracts the text of a document (PDF/DOCX/XLSX), naming the underlying libraries. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling fetch_page for HTML pages, so an agent can separate it from the other extraction tools.

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 КОГДА/НЕ structure gives explicit when-to-use ('нужен документ... отчёт, прайс, спецификация') and when-not ('HTML-страница → fetch_page (дешевле)'), naming the alternative and the reason it is preferred. It also routes legacy .doc/.xls users to a conversion step first.

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