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

Annotations already mark idempotent and non-destructive; the description adds cost model, 10-minute output expiry, and signature invalidation. These are meaningful beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, core action first followed only by operationally relevant constraints. Every sentence contributes.

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?

The tool has seven parameters and no output schema, yet the description says nothing about the output format/retrieval, the effect of omitting 'pages', or how fileIds maps to 'one PDF'. The cost/expiry details help, but an agent is left with significant gaps.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate for the six undocumented parameters. The phrase 'one-based pages order' adds meaning to pages, but fileIds, title, author, degrees, and subject receive no explanation.

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 uses a specific verb ('extract') and resource ('one PDF') and mentions the page-order parameter. It is clear enough on its own but does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like pdf_split or pdf_rotate.

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 the tool is for extracting a subset/ordering of pages from one PDF, but it never states when to use it over pdf_split or pdf_rotate, nor any exclusions. There is no 'when not to use' guidance, so an agent must infer.

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