Read a course file as text

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses page-window streaming for PDFs, Google provider exports, accepted formats, and the important limitation that Office formats download but cannot be extracted. This gives an agent concrete expectations for context usage and failures.

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?

Five succinct, high-signal sentences: purpose, Google-link special case, PDF windowing, format coverage, and final usage mandate. Every sentence earns its place, and the key user recommendation is saved for the last sentence for impact.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only extraction tool: it covers behavior, limitations, format support, and practical use in lectures. Given the detailed annotations and 100% schema coverage, no critical context is missing for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description itself does not deeply elaborate on each parameter, instead referencing the schema-level terms like fromPage. It adds minor contextual value by explaining the purpose of windows and offset-style continuation, but it does not materially improve upon the already-complete schema.

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 opens with a clear verb–resource pair ('Downloads a file attached to a content item and extracts its text') and adds a distinctive secondary capability: resolving Google Slides/Docs/Sheets links into readable text. It closes with an explicit usage statement ('This is the tool to use to actually read lecture notes or a handout'), and the format coverage details distinguish it from sibling tools like bb_download_file.

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 recommends when to use the tool ('This is the tool to use to actually read lecture notes or a handout') and provides conditional guidance for PDFs and Google-linked documents. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use scenarios or compare against siblings like bb_download_file, so it stops just short of the clearest possible when/when-not guidance.

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