get_source_page_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 real behavioral trait: only the embedded text layer is returned, so schematic pages yield little or nothing. It does not state what happens on a page with no text layer (empty result vs. error) or that no OCR is performed, leaving a small gap.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the fallback routing appended. No filler, no restatement of the name.

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, and the read-only nature of text extraction is self-evident. What remains thin is the format of `source` and the behavior on pages lacking a text layer.

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 0% for both required parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that page refers to a single page of the original PDF and that the arguments mirror get_source_page, but never defines what form `source` takes (ID, path, or name), so the compensation is only partial.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Extract the text layer of one page of an original PDF") with an explicit scope of one page. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_source_page by naming the page type where that tool is preferred, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit exclusion plus the alternative: schematic pages contain little text, so render them with get_source_page instead. This is a concrete when-not/use-instead rule rather than implied usage.

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