Free: return the page count and exact cost_usd to read a document URL with read_document, without running OCR. Use before reading large documents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | http(s) URL of the PDF or image | |
| pages | No | Optional page range like '1-20'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is free, returns page count and cost, and does not run OCR. It doesn't explicitly mention side effects, but for a non-destructive estimation tool, this is adequate and adds relevant context beyond the schema.
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?
Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose, then provide usage context. No wasted words; every clause adds value.
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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what it returns and when to use it. The note about large documents provides practical context. No gaps remain for the agent to understand 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 coverage is 100% (both params have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional parameter details beyond the schema, but the schema already explains url and pages. This meets the baseline for high-coverage schemas.
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 purpose: returning page count and exact cost_usd for reading a document via read_document, explicitly noting it does not run OCR. This distinguishes it from the sibling read_document by highlighting the estimation-focused, non-OCR scope.
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?
Provides explicit guidance: 'Use before reading large documents.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, and the mention of 'without running OCR' implies a lighter alternative to read_document, effectively differentiating usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The two tools are clearly distinct: one estimates cost, the other performs OCR. There is no overlap in purpose or behavior.
Both tools follow the same verb_noun pattern (estimate_cost, read_document), making the naming predictable and consistent.
With only two tools, the server feels minimal but appropriate for its focused OCR purpose. The count is borderline thin, but each tool serves a necessary part of the workflow.
The core workflow of estimating cost and reading documents is covered well. Minor gaps exist, such as no ability to list past reads or handle file uploads, but these are outside the obvious scope.
