page_text

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely useful context: extraction is text-only with no OCR, and results are paginated. However, the pagination reference uses a field name that doesn't exist in the schema, which weakens the added value.

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 compact sentences with no filler, and the core capability is front-loaded ahead of the pagination and OCR caveats.

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?

With no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the agent must infer the return shape, bbox coordinate format, and max_chars truncation behavior. The description covers the essential extraction scope and the no-OCR limitation, but leaves meaningful gaps for a five-parameter tool.

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 five parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It partially does: 'normalized crop' hints that bbox coordinates are normalized, and 'paginate' maps loosely to offset/max_chars. But file, page, offset, and max_chars remain semantically undocumented.

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 text from one PDF page or normalized crop'), clearly contrasting with page_render and page_crop in the sibling set. Scope ('one PDF page') is explicit, though it never names its siblings directly.

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?

'Paginate with next_offset; no OCR' implies the usage pattern and a key limitation, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-an-alternative guidance against siblings like search_text or page_render. The pagination hint is also ambiguous because it references 'next_offset', which does not match any schema parameter.

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