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

Annotations only declare it is non-destructive and closed-world, so the description must carry the rest. 'Returns the result file' is vague — no indication of whether the result is a URL, a base64 payload, or where the file lands — and there is no output schema to compensate.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no redundant restatement of the schema. The phrase 'ready for AI tools' is mild marketing but takes little space.

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?

Inputs are fully specified by the schema, so the main gap is output shape: 'Returns the result file' does not tell the agent whether it gets text inline or a handle to a file. With no output schema, that is a real omission but not a blocking one.

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%, including the files array, upload_id/content_base64 alternatives and the 50 MB cap, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds 'Accepts pdf' but nothing about the pages selector or format default beyond what the schema documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the text of a PDF') plus the two output formats, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It doesn't differentiate from close siblings like ocr-pdf or pdf-to-word, which is left to inference from the name.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance. The agent gets no signal about whether to choose this over ocr-pdf for scanned documents or pdf-to-word when a .docx is needed; only the tagline 'ready for AI tools' hints at intent.

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