Read Document Text

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: pagination limits (12 pages/24000 chars), result fields (pages_returned, next_pages), and links to full Markdown/PDF. This is genuine added value beyond the annotations.

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 compact: three sentences, front-loaded with the core function, then limits, then a practical usage tip. Each sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or fluffy text. It is well-structured for quick scanning.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the rich annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, limits, pagination, and advice for large documents. It lacks explicit error handling or a full return structure, but those are minor given the annotations and schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it 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 83%, meaning most parameters are already documented. The description reinforces max_chars behavior and mentions doc_id's source, but does not add substantive new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema carries the load, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it provides Markdown text of a parsed filing by doc_id and page range, with page markers for citation. This is specific and distinct from other document-related siblings like list_company_documents or get_document_summary, though it does not explicitly name them. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance for large filings (100-400 pages) — read only needed sections or download the Markdown link to search the whole file. It also sets expectations about page/character limits per call. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools, it provides sufficient context for when and how to use it.

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