isir_text_dokumentu

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses the OCR engine (Tesseract, Czech), attachment unpacking for PDF portfolios, the page-marker output format, and the JSON return shape. It omits any note on permissions/rate limits or the cost of forced OCR on large documents.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by pipeline behavior, then parameter guidance and return shape. Information-dense with little filler, though the OCR-mode and pagination blocks could be slightly tighter.

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?

For a 7-parameter extraction tool with no annotations and an output schema present, the description covers the pipeline, the tricky parameter modes, pagination, and even summarizes the return payload. It is nearly complete, missing only guidance on 'znovu' and on when not to use 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the non-obvious parameters: it enumerates the three 'ocr' modes with when-to-use guidance and explains the pagination params (strana_od/strana_do, offset, max_znaku). It leaves 'znovu' (re-process flag) and the required 'dokument_id' 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 states a specific verb+resource ('Plný text dokumentu ISIR') and immediately details the extraction pipeline (PDF download, text layer, OCR). This clearly separates it from download-oriented siblings like isir_stahnout_dokument and search-oriented ones like isir_hledat_v_dokumentech.

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 gives concrete usage conditions: 'force' for bad text layers, and pagination via strana_od/strana_do or offset + max_znaku for long documents. It does not, however, explicitly state when to prefer this tool over isir_stahnout_dokument or isir_hledat_v_dokumentech.

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