extract_text_by_page

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 only states what the tool does, without disclosing return format, error behavior, page numbering, or encoding defaults. It does not contradict anything, but provides little behavioral context.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it appropriately 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?

Given 4 parameters, no annotations, and a minimal description, the tool is under-specified. Users are left guessing how to format 'page_range', what 'encoding' does, and how the result is returned, so the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 should compensate for parameter meaning. It only mentions pages/page ranges, giving minimal context for two of the four parameters, while 'encoding' and the exact format of 'page_range' are left unexplained.

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 extracts text from specific pages or page ranges, using a specific verb and resource. The mention of 'specific pages or page ranges' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'extract_text', which likely handles whole 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'extract_text'. The description is purely functional, with no mention of scenarios where this is preferred or any exclusions.

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