get_document_outline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape (titles + page + page_label) and an important edge-case behavior: short documents yield no outline. It does not mention failure modes for an invalid doc_id or confirm read-only semantics, but the disclosed behavior goes meaningfully beyond the structured fields.

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 with zero filler; the primary purpose is front-loaded and the fallback guidance follows immediately. Every clause earns its place by either defining output or routing behavior.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't re-explain return values, and it still covers the key behavioral caveat (no outline for short documents) plus the downstream handoff to read_document. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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% and the doc_id parameter is documented in the schema with a concrete example ('ir-2026-III-en'). The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ('Table of contents of one document') and enumerates exactly what it returns: section titles, the PDF page for read_document, and the printed page label. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling read_document, which it explicitly references.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool's role as a routing step toward read_document (the 'page' value is passed there), and names a when-not condition: short documents like MPC decisions (1-2 pages) have no outline and should be read directly. Both the alternative and the exclusion condition are stated.

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