get_text_v1

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that this is a legacy v1 endpoint, which hints at potential behavioral differences, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether parameters behave differently, or what the output looks like versus the current get_text.

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. The legacy status is front-loaded, and the routing instruction to prefer get_text is immediately actionable. Every word 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?

For a legacy endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not specify what the response contains, how this version differs from get_text, or whether any parameters are deprecated or behave differently. The agent can make a basic call from the schema but lacks important context for correct and safe use.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a legacy v1 text endpoint, which conveys the resource type and legacy status, but it never states explicitly what the tool does (e.g., 'Retrieves text for a reference'). It partially differentiates from get_text by labeling this as legacy, but the core purpose is only implicit.

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 explicitly directs the agent to use 'get_text instead when possible', which clearly establishes get_text as the preferred alternative and implies this legacy endpoint is a fallback. However, it does not explain under what conditions the legacy endpoint should be used instead, leaving some ambiguity.

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