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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so with the lower bar the description still adds value by disclosing the return medium (an image) and the single-page constraint. It stops short of discussing auth or limits, which is acceptable given the rich annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by input sourcing and a constraint. Every sentence carries weight, though the phrasing is slightly clipped.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be re-explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers input sourcing, medium, and scope constraint, leaving little an agent needs 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters; the description only reinforces that the pdf name and page come from a card listing. This is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource and scope: one page of an original source document returned as an image, framed as 'to check a rule or number.' It is clearly distinguishable from the siblings, though it does not directly name a contrasting tool.

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?

'Use the pdf name and page listed by get_tool_card' supplies a concrete routing precondition, and 'to check a rule or number' gives the motivating context. It adds the 'Single pages only' constraint, but names no explicit when-not or alternative.

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