rx_get_document_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description reinforces it ("Только чтение") and adds behavior the annotations do not: format support limits, truncation by max_chars, and offset-based continuation. It does not, however, describe the return shape or any error semantics beyond the PDF notice.

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?

Short, front-loaded sentences that lead with what is returned, then usage, then format limits and pagination mechanics. Dense but each sentence carries information; no filler.

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, the description must convey what comes back; it does so (document text, truncated, continue via offset) and covers format coverage and the read-only nature. Only the exact failure/return format remains unspecified, which 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%, so all four parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds the truncation/continuation interplay between max_chars and offset and restates the latest-version default, which is marginal value beyond the schema; baseline 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 names a specific verb+resource (get the text of a document version, latest by default), scopes it to extraction rather than metadata, and enumerates supported formats (docx, xlsx, pptx, txt, md, csv, json, xml, html, rtf). It also points the agent at rx_find_documents for the id, which separates it from adjacent document 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?

Gives explicit use cases (retelling a document, finding conditions, amounts, deadlines) and an exclusion (PDF and scans are not read and will be reported as such). It names where the id comes from, but offers no guidance on when to prefer the sibling rx_get_document instead.

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