extract_text_in_regions

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any behavioral details such as output format, failure modes, coordinate system, ordering of results, or resource limits. The one-line summary does not explain what the tool does beyond the basic action, leaving the agent to guess at runtime behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action summary. The Args section is clearly formatted as a list, providing structural separation. It earns high marks for brevity, but loses a point for the redundancy of restating the schema property names without additional context and for the lack of any semantic grouping (e.g., input source vs. region specification).

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 three parameters and a nested object structure, the description provides enough to construct a basic invocation, but it lacks important contextual information such as the output schema's return format (even though an output schema exists, it is not shown), the coordinate system used (e.g., PDF points vs pixels), and any constraints or edge cases. The lack of usage alternatives further reduces completeness for an agent operating alongside sibling PDF tools.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions. The description compensates by explicitly explaining the purpose of each parameter: 'path' as absolute filesystem path, 'data' as base64-encoded PDF bytes, and 'page_regions' with a detailed structure including page index and region coordinates. This adds genuine meaning beyond the bare type definitions, though it does not clarify the mutuality between path and data.

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 'Extract text from specific bounding-box regions on pages' clearly specifies a distinct verb, resource, and scope, distinguishing itself from sibling tools like extract_text or extract_text_with_positions which likely operate on entire pages or different position granularity. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to choose region-based extraction over full-page extraction, or any constraints on the PDF source (e.g., local file vs base64 data). The Args section implies two mutually exclusive input methods but does not clarify the choice.

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