Get text of Docling document item at anchor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that the document must exist in the local document cache and that extraction is targeted at an anchor location, which helps the agent understand prerequisites.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence repeats some of the same information, but it adds useful cache context, so the slight redundancy is acceptable.

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 read-only tool with a full input schema, output schema, and safety annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers the key prerequisite of cache residency, though it does not explain behavior for invalid or missing anchors; that is a minor gap.

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%, with both document_key and document_anchor already described clearly, including an example anchor format. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve'/'extracts') and names the precise resource: text content of a Docling document item at an anchor. It stands apart from siblings like update_text_of_document_item_at_anchor and search_for_text_in_document_anchors by clearly focusing on read-only text extraction.

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 when to use the tool: after a document exists in the local document cache and when you need the text of a single anchored item. However, it gives no explicit guidance about alternatives or when not to use it, such as when needing to search anchors or update text.

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