pdf_extract_tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses cost ('$0.01 PER PAGE') and the default output format, which are real behavioral traits. But it omits any indication of auth/permission needs, processing time, or what happens on non-text PDFs (failure mode), so coverage is partial.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and output, then use cases, then the cost signal in caps. Every clause carries information; nothing is 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?

Covers purpose, output format, and pricing well, and there is no output schema to explain. But for a 7-parameter tool with near-zero schema documentation, the pagination params, output_path, and idempotency_key are left entirely to inference, leaving the definition incomplete for 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?

Schema description coverage is only 14% – essentially just min_cols is documented in the schema. The description compensates only for the output enum (JSON/CSV) and the 'local path' nature of file; first_page, last_page, output_path, idempotency_key and min_cols remain unexplained, which is a significant gap for a 7-param tool.

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 ('Find tables in a text-based PDF') and the output form ('JSON rows (default) or CSV'). The 'text-based PDF' qualifier implicitly separates it from OCR-based siblings, and it names concrete use cases (invoices, reports, bank statements). It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool, so not a 5.

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 'text-based PDF' framing implies that scanned/image PDFs need a different tool (e.g. ocr), and the listed document types sketch a usage context. However there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not statements and no alternative tool is named, leaving the routing inference to the agent.

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