read_doc_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only operation (implied by 'return'), requires indexed documents, and mentions truncation behavior (maxChars cap, truncated flag). It does not detail rate limits or error handling, but for a read retrieval tool, this is sufficient.

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 sentences with no redundancy. Each part serves a purpose: purpose statement, prerequisite, parameter guidance, and usage context. Perfectly concise.

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?

While the description covers purpose and guidelines, it lacks information about the output structure (beyond mentioning truncated flag) and error conditions (e.g., invalid page, unindexed document). Given no output schema, more details would improve completeness.

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%, but the description adds context beyond the schema: docUrl must be exactly as in search results, pageEnd is optional for a range, maxChars default and hard cap with truncation flag. This aids correct parameter usage.

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 explicitly states it returns full indexed plain text for a PDF page or page range, and references query_doc_content for getting page numbers. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by noting usage when snippets are too short.

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 gives an explicit use case: when snippets are too short for tables or register maps. It also mentions prerequisites (document must be indexed, docUrl must be as in search results). It could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use (e.g., for whole documents, use read_doc).

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