Texto de um documento por página

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description still adds non-obvious behavior: pages lacking own text are flagged, the PJe signature stamp does not count as text, and output order may not follow the visual column order. It does not mention that output can be truncated by max_caracteres (default 60000), a relevant behavioral caveat.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then the scan/alternative caveat, then the ordering warning. No filler; each sentence carries a distinct, actionable fact.

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 no output schema, the description still conveys the shape of the result (text per page, with a scanned-page marker) and the two failure modes an agent must handle (scanned pages, column misordering). Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100% (arquivo, paginas, max_caracteres all documented in-schema), so the baseline is 3. The prose adds no per-parameter detail, only the caveat to verify text against the page.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource with scope: extracted text page by page from a PDF (or text file). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from documento_imagens by routing scanned/no-text pages there, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives the use case (locate excerpts, check numbers), an explicit exclusion (pages without their own text are scanned; the MCP does no OCR), and names the alternative tool (documento_imagens) for that case. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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