alefba_read_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (structured result or async) and the required format for page URLs, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or mention any permissions. The behavioral traits are implied but not fully transparent.

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 concise: two English sentences and one Persian sentence, front-loading the purpose. It includes a usage example. The bilingual aspect is slightly redundant but does not detract. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not detailed), the description explains the core input and return type but fails to cover most parameters. It provides enough context for a niche tool but is incomplete regarding optional parameters and output specifics.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only adds meaning for page_urls (URL format with @page=N) and instance (optional, default). The other five parameters (type, fix_orientation, word_positions, wait, priority) are not explained, leaving significant gaps. The description does not compensate adequately for the missing parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Read (OCR) specific pages of documents.' It explains the page URL format with @page=N suffix and specifies the return type (like alefba_read_document or async). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool alefba_read_document, which reads full documents.

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 mentions that it returns the same structured result as alefba_read_document, implying similarity, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alefba_read_document or other siblings. No direct when-not or alternative guidance is provided beyond this indirect reference.

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