get_element_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a key behavioral limitation: the text layer can lose structure for tables, figures, and formulas. It also indicates the returned content includes type, page, and region. It does not discuss permissions, error behavior, or side effects, but for a retrieval-style tool the disclosed limitation is substantive.

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 tool's purpose and followed by the critical usage distinction. Every sentence adds value, and nothing is redundant.

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?

The description is complete for a simple two-parameter retrieval tool. Output schema richness and full parameter documentation cover the structural details, while the description supplies the essential limitation and alternative-tool guidance an agent needs.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both parameters, including where document references and element IDs come from. The description reinforces the text-layer context but does not add parameter syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource and scope: the full text of elements from the text layer, including type, page, and region. It clearly distinguishes this tool from get_page_image by naming the content types each handles, so an agent can select correctly without inspecting schemas.

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 explicitly says to use this tool for headings and paragraphs, and explicitly routes table values, figures, and formulas to get_page_image because the text layer can lose their structure. That is a clear when-to-use and when-to-use-alternative rule.

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