blackboard_read_downloaded_material

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description usefully adds the operational envelope: 20 MiB size cap, 20 PDF pages, 20000 chars per response, and the crucial negatives 'no ejecuta documentos ni hace OCR'. That is real value beyond the structured hints, though it omits what happens when limits are exceeded (truncation vs error).

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?

One dense sentence with the capability first and the constraints/negatives trailing; no filler and nothing redundant.

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?

With no output schema and zero parameter descriptions, the definition should do more: return shape is only hinted at via the char cap, and offset/startPage behavior (paging through long documents) is unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps for a 5-parameter reader.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load for 5 parameters. It explains the caps behind maxChars and maxPages (20000 chars, 20 pages), but says nothing about path, offset, or startPage, leaving pagination semantics for offset/startPage entirely undocumented.

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?

Specific verb ('lee texto local') plus resource (downloaded materials) and an explicit enumeration of supported formats (PDF, DOCX, PPTX, XLSX, UTF-8). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_downloaded_materials or search_downloaded_materials, which enumerate/find rather than extract text.

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 implies the read-after-download workflow and states hard limits, but never says when to choose this over search_downloaded_materials or list_downloaded_materials, nor any prerequisite (e.g., that the file must already be downloaded). Usage is only implied.

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