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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers output format (single PDF vs ZIP), link-based delivery with roughly one-day expiry, verbatim page copying, no size reduction, no rasterization, upload restrictions, and rate limits. This is exceptionally transparent for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 long but every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently covers output format, delivery mechanism, behavioral limitations, upload constraints, and rate limiting. No sentence is wasted.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains what the agent will receive (link vs bytes, ZIP vs PDF, expiry). It also covers prerequisites (REST API upload, fileUrl format) and constraints (third-party URLs rejected, rate limit). For a single-parameter tool, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema already describes the ranges parameter in full detail (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that multiple ranges produce a ZIP and that a single range returns that PDF directly, clarifying how the parameter's cardinality affects the result.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Extract page ranges from one PDF into new PDFs.' It clearly states the tool's core function and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly noting that it does not reduce file size (compress_pdf) and cannot rasterize pages (a browser-only feature).

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 description gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use compress_pdf for size reduction, and rasterization is browser-only. It also specifies the required input source ('fileUrl' in razi.pro storage, obtained via REST API) and notes the 20-splits-per-hour rate limit, so an agent knows exactly what to prepare and expect.

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