pdf_extract_text

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds crucial behavioral context about the 10-page default limit and its rationale (LLM context limits), which is not inferable from the annotations. No contradictions with 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?

Two sentences efficiently structured: first states purpose, second explains default behavior and parameter usage. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy or filler.

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?

Appropriately complete for a read-only extraction tool with good annotations and full schema coverage. Mentions return behavior (first 10 pages) despite lacking an output schema. Minor gap: could mention output format (plain text) or handling of image-based PDFs.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents both filePath and pages parameters. The description adds usage guidance for the pages parameter but does not add semantic meaning (syntax, format examples) beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 ('Extract') and resource ('text content from a PDF file'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like pdf_create, pdf_add_watermark, or pdf_get_metadata which handle creation, modification, or metadata rather than text extraction.

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?

Provides clear context about the default 10-page limitation to avoid LLM context limits and explicitly states when to use the 'pages' parameter ('for specific pages'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like pdf_get_metadata or error handling for encrypted files.

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