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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that a result file is returned and which formats are accepted, but says nothing about whether the original is preserved, how multiple files are returned, or any size/time constraints handling beyond what the schema states.

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 with zero filler, formats and return behavior front-loaded in the first and second lines respectively. Nothing to trim.

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 is simple and the schema is complete, but "Returns the result file" is ambiguous for a batch-capable tool accepting up to 20 files — it doesn't say whether the response is one file, an array, or an archive. That is the one thing an agent still needs to know.

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% and the single `files` parameter is fully documented, including the upload_id vs content_base64 alternative and the 50 MB limit. The description's format list duplicates rather than extends the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Precise verb ("strip") plus resource ("hidden data") and explicit scope (PDFs and photos, with formats enumerated). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like unlock-pdf or compress-pdf, though no sibling is named as a contrast.

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?

Supported formats are stated, so the agent can infer when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives for adjacent needs (e.g., unlock-pdf, convert-image). Usage is only implied.

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