get_loc_text

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavior: the tool returns a path to a cached file (not the text inline) and mentions hyphenation rejoining. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it describe any side effects like caching behavior or file lifetime. Still, it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'download text'.

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 only two sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the core function, the second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 (single parameter, output schema present), the description covers the essential usage context and behavioral details. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and a key processing detail (hyphenation). The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the cached file's format or the path location, but the presence of an output schema likely covers that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for this tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'reference'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's description ('Page reference, as returned by `search_loc`'). Baseline score of 3 applies because schema already adequately documents the parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Download') and resource ('page's OCR text') and clearly states the return value ('path to the cached file'). It also distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with 'snippets' and mentioning 'grepping', which is not possible with snippets_loc.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use when snippets are not enough and the whole page has to be read or grepped.' This gives clear guidance and implies the alternative (snippets_loc) is for partial text. It also mentions hyphenation rejoining, which helps the user understand the output's behavior.

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