read_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the output ordering ('reading order, page by page'), and says nothing about the password parameter's behavior, what happens when no text layer exists, or error/permission conditions.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy. It is efficient yet too thin to guide invocation.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description omits usage guidance versus ocr/search, the pages format, and the password semantics. For a 3-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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% across three parameters. The description gestures at 'pages given' but gives no accepted syntax (ranges, comma lists, 1-based indexing), and the password parameter is entirely unaddressed in both schema and description.

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 is a noun phrase ('Text of the document... in reading order, page by page') rather than a verb+resource statement, so the action (extract/read) must be inferred from the tool name. It does scope the resource and ordering, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like ocr, search, or pdf_info, which is the key ambiguity for a text-extraction tool.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as ocr for scanned documents or search for targeted lookups. The agent is left to guess whether this works on image-only PDFs or only on documents with a text layer.

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