nara_extracted_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the auth requirement and the 4,000-character truncation of long strings, which is real behavioral context. However it says nothing about pagination behavior (despite page/limit params), what happens for records without digital objects or OCR, or rate limits.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the truncation caveat second. No filler, though the truncation note could be tied to the limit parameter for tighter structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. But for a 4-param tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves pagination and object selection unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters. The description only hints at the record identity and says nothing about page, limit, or object_id — the pagination and object-selection semantics are entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 specific verb and resource: retrieve OCR text extracted from a record's digital objects. An agent can distinguish this from nara_get_record (metadata) by the 'extracted text' scope, but the description never explicitly names or contrasts the sibling tools.

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?

It states the auth prerequisite (NARA_API_KEY) but gives no when-to-use guidance, no condition that selects this over nara_get_record or the other text tools, and no note on when OCR may be unavailable.

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