read_document

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries the burden. It partially discloses behavior (PDF-only page params, default max_chars) but omits details like error handling, auth requirements, or support for non-PDF formats.

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?

The description is efficiently front-loaded with purpose, followed by a clear, compact argument list. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, return values are not needed. The description covers parameters well and notes PDF-specific behavior. However, it could explicitly state supported file formats; the PDF-only qualifiers on page params imply non-PDF support but are ambiguous.

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%, so description must compensate. It thoroughly explains each parameter: relative_path with example path, max_chars with default, page_start/page_end as PDF-only with 1-based indexing and clarifying zero values.

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 starts with 'Read or extract text from a study document,' providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_documents (listing) or search_documents (searching).

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?

No explicit guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_document_outline for structure, search_documents for queries). Usage is implied via the purpose but lacks exclusions or context.

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