Get Document Text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the text-based-PDF precondition, that blank or image-only pages yield a no-text explanation rather than an error, and that OCR is required for image-only content. It omits any mention of size limits, page-range behavior, auth, or truncation of very long documents.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by usage, then caveats. The phrase "so the model can read the paper's contents directly" is mildly redundant but the overall density is good.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover both behavior and return shape; it handles failure modes well but says nothing about return structure, how text is chunked, or the two page parameters, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool with a partial-page feature.

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% for all three parameters, and the description never mentions page_start/page_end at all, even though it discusses which pages may lack text. Whether page indices are 1-based, inclusive, or optional is left entirely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource: extract and return the full text of the PDF attached to a library document. That distinguishes it in spirit from mendeley_search_document_text (which searches within text) and mendeley_get_file_content, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

"Use this when asked to read, summarize, or answer questions about a paper" gives a clear triggering context, and the OCR/blank-page note further narrows applicability. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming the search-based alternative, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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