Proof of Use PDF Tool Matcher

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only/idempotent profile, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: it abstains rather than forcing a match, returns qualified matches, exclusions, unknowns, evidence links and source dates, and performs no uploads, URL fetching or charges. This is rich operational context an agent cannot infer from 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 dense sentences with the core action and scope front-loaded, followed by exclusions and constraints. Slightly list-like in the closing clauses, but every sentence carries distinct information.

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 7 required parameters, the schema's enums, defaults and per-field descriptions plus an output schema cover the mechanics, and the description supplies the remaining context: abstention behavior, evidence/date returns, and the documentation-only, no-network, no-charge scope.

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 63% and 5 of 8 parameters are enums with self-describing values, so the schema carries most of the burden. The description only indirectly maps semantics via 'seven explicit preferences' (matching the 7 required params) and 'up to five' results; it adds no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Rank ... PDF table-extraction configurations'), plus scope limits ('up to five', 'against seven explicit preferences'). An agent immediately knows this is a documentation-based ranking/selection tool rather than an extraction 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?

Gives clear negative routing ('not PDF extraction, benchmarking, legal advice or a complete market search') and an abstention condition ('abstains when none qualify'). It lacks positive when-to-invoke framing, but with no sibling tools the exclusions do most of the selecting work.

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