get_document_ocr_rects

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains that returns per-rect page index, recognized text, and normalized coordinates, implying read-only behavior. No side effects or limitations are mentioned, but the description is adequate for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

Extremely concise, two sentences front-loaded with core purpose and optional filter. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 covers the essential purpose and optional filter, and the return format is hinted (per-rect data). For a simple tool with no output schema, it is mostly complete, though missing details on edge cases (e.g., missing OCR).

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'Optionally filter by page,' which rephrases the schema's description for the page parameter but does not add significant new semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 retrieves OCR bounding boxes with per-rect details (page index, text, coordinates) and optional page filtering, distinguishing it from siblings like get_document_text (text only) and get_document_metadata (metadata only).

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 optional page filtering but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_document_text). The purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer usage, but no direct guidance is given.

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