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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions 'Browser-based tool', hinting at local/browser processing, but provides no details on how pages are specified, error handling, or privacy implications. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

The description is extremely short—one phrase—and contains no wasted words. However, it is under-specified even for a simple tool, lacking the structure that would help an agent understand the full scope. It's concise but not well-rounded.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and a one-line description, the tool is under-specified. It does not explain the return format, how page selection is communicated, or constraints. Among many sibling PDF tools, the description is too sparse to ensure 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and the rule sets a baseline of 4 for 0-parameter tools. The description does not add parameter details, but there are none to describe. The 'Browser-based tool' hint suggests an interactive selection mechanism, but that's not clearly stated. The baseline holds.

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 '指定ページだけ抽出' (extract only specified pages) clearly states a specific action on a PDF resource, distinct from 'remove' or 'split' tools. The tool name reinforces the purpose. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like pdf-remove-pages or pdf-split, the verb 'extract' implies creating a new document with selected pages.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pdf-split or pdf-remove-pages. The 'Browser-based tool' note is a technical detail, not a usage context or exclusion. The description does not clarify scenarios where extraction is preferred.

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