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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions local processing (privacy) but omits important details: whether the original file is modified, required permissions, size limits, or what happens if no ranges are given (e.g., split every page individually). The description is incomplete for a mutation-like operation.

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 reasonably concise but includes a Polish translation that duplicates English content without benefit for English-speaking agents. It could be shortened while retaining key points, making it less efficient.

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 no output schema and limited annotations, the description should cover expected output format, default behavior without 'ranges' (e.g., splits all pages), and constraints like maximum pages or file size. These are missing, leaving the agent under-informed for a tool with moderate complexity.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining how to format the 'ranges' parameter (e.g., '1-3, 5') and noting that the user can adjust selections before downloading, which aids understanding beyond 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?

The description explicitly states the tool's function as 'Split a PDF / extract pages' and gives a usage example with ranges. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like merge_pdfs (combining) and fill_pdf_form (form filling), satisfying a specific verb+resource pattern.

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 description tells when to use the tool (to split or extract pages) and hints at the interactive workflow ('user can adjust on thumbnails'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling names provide indirect guidance.

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