Get overview of Docling document anchors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it operates on the local document cache and returns line-level output containing anchor references and item labels. This is proportionate for a read-only tool and does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main action and resource. The second sentence adds specific output details—hierarchy, types, anchor reference, and item label—without any filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only overview tool with complete input schema documentation, annotations, and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers source, behavior, and output format. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%: document_key is already described as 'The unique identifier of the document in the local cache.' The description's phrase 'from the local document cache' reinforces this but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with 'Retrieve a structured overview of a document from the local document cache' and then explains that the output is a text representation of the document's hierarchy and element types, with each line containing an anchor reference and item label. This clearly identifies the action, resource, and output, and differentiates it from sibling content-retrieval or mutation tools.

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?

The usage context is implied: use this when you need a structural overview of a cached Docling document. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as search_for_text_in_document_anchors or get_text_of_document_item_at_anchor, and no 'when not to use' guidance.

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