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

Annotations declare idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false, but the description adds valuable operational details: it costs 1 credit per call, returns a temporary download link valid for 15 minutes, and produces an unencrypted copy (implying the original is untouched). These go beyond the structured fields and set accurate expectations for side effects.

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 three sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the core action and condition, then adds the essential operational constraints (cost, result, link validity). Every sentence earns its place; no redundant text.

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 simple tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: the action, the input requirements, the cost, the return type, and the result's validity period. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100% — both 'file' and 'password' are fully described in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to because the schema already conveys the meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 action ('Remove the password of a PDF'), the resource (a PDF), and the key condition (you must know it). It explicitly distinguishes itself from password-cracking by saying 'It does not crack passwords', which differentiates it from any hypothetical brute-force tool and clarifies its scope among PDF siblings.

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 provides clear usage guidance by stating the prerequisite ('you must know it') and the non-capability ('does not crack passwords'). This tells an agent when NOT to use it (if the password is unknown). It doesn't explicitly name the alternative protect_pdf, but the sibling list makes the reverse operation obvious, so the guidance is sufficient.

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