Get page text

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden: it discloses it's a read operation, what content is returned (text list, optional rendered image), and the page-numbering convention. It omits error behavior (e.g. out-of-range page) and any limits, keeping it below 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then per-sheet-type content guidance, then the page-numbering caveat. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description explains the return payload well enough (text content shape and optional image). For a 3-param read tool that's sufficient.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: page numbers are PDF page numbers equal to sheet numbers, and it explains when to set include_image. The doc_id 'part of title/file name' nuance stays with the schema.

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+resource ('Return the extracted text of one page of a document') plus the optional image variant, and distinguishes itself from the image-only sibling by describing what text you get per sheet type.

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 concrete usage context: for schematic sheets the text is labels/designators/wire numbers, and you should request the image to read the actual circuit. It stops short of naming get_page_image or an alternative explicitly, so it's clear guidance without explicit sibling routing.

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