extract

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the operation is 'Bounded' and 'refuses when too big,' which is important operational knowledge for an agent.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds a critical behavioral warning, so every sentence earns its place.

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 four parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not explain what 'clean text' excludes, how to specify the page range, what source refers to, what happens on refusal, or what the return value looks like. The bounded/refusal note is helpful but not sufficient.

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 compensate. It maps loosely to two parameters: 'page range' hints at pages and 'clean text' hints at clean_text. However, it does not explain source, password, or page-range formatting, leaving significant parameter semantics unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Extract clean text for a page range.' It clearly indicates the output type ('clean text') and scope ('page range'), which helps differentiate it from siblings like extract_tables and to_markdown, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any alternative.

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 phrase 'for a page range' implies the intended use case, and 'Bounded; refuses when too big' warns about size limits. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as read_page, extract_tables, or to_markdown, so the usage context is only implied.

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