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

Annotations already declare the tool safe (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds behavioral details like template syntax and options but does not disclose side effects such as output generation or potential limitations. Given the annotations cover safety, the additional context earns a moderate score.

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 concise, just two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. It avoids fluff and includes a concrete example, making every sentence useful.

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 7 parameters and existing output schema and annotations, the description provides a good summary of capabilities and the critical template example. It doesn't explicitly mention return format, but the output schema covers that. Some edge-case guidance is missing, but overall 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?

The schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the template format with {n} and {total} and giving an example, which clarifies how parameters combine. It also summarizes parameters in natural language, enhancing understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Stamp page numbers or footer text onto every page of a PDF.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by listing specific features like starting number, roman numerals, and template support, making it unique among PDF 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 description implies usage for adding page numbers or footer text but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like pdf_watermark or pdf_rotate. It provides context by mentioning 'the combination Acrobat cannot do without scripting' but lacks explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance.

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