get_page_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the important 1-based page-number behavior, and 'Get' implies a non-mutating read operation. However, it does not say what happens for an invalid page number or whether the returned text includes tables, headers, or other page elements.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the critical page-number detail is placed in a concise parenthetical.

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 simple page-specific getter, the description is close to adequate: the output schema exists and page_number semantics are clarified. However, the unexplained 'option' parameter and lack of alternative-tool routing leave meaningful gaps for an agent selecting and invoking this tool correctly.

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%, and the description only clarifies page_number semantics by noting it is 1-based. The required doc_id parameter and the optional 'option' parameter are not explained at all, leaving an agent guessing about what doc_id refers to and what option controls.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Get text content of a specific page'. The parenthetical '1-based page number' adds a useful constraint that helps distinguish this tool from siblings like get_document_text, which returns whole-document text. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the page-level scope is clear enough to avoid obvious confusion.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_document_text or get_paragraphs. The description only states what the tool does, not when an agent should prefer it or when it should not be used. This leaves routing to inference.

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