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

The description discloses cost (1 credit per 10 started pages), max input pages (100), output expiry (10 minutes), and a side effect (signature invalidation). Annotations only cover read-only, destructive, and idempotent hints, so this adds substantial operational context beyond structured data. No contradiction with 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?

Three concise sentences front-load the core purpose, then cover cost and limits, then side effects. Every sentence adds essential information with no filler or redundancy.

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?

While operational details like cost, expiry, and signature invalidation are covered, the meaning of 7 parameters is largely unexplained, and the workflow (e.g., needing fileIds from upload_document) is absent. With no output schema and minimal schema descriptions, this is a significant gap for correct invocation.

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%, with requestId being the only documented parameter. The description does not explain fileIds, pages, degrees, title, author, or subject. An agent cannot determine what values to pass for most parameters from the description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Split one PDF into a ZIP containing one PDF per page.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like pdf_merge and pdf_extract. The output format and granularity are unambiguous.

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 tool's purpose implies usage when one PDF per page is needed, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like pdf_extract or pdf_merge. No when-not conditions or prerequisite steps are mentioned. It is adequate but relies on inference.

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