Inspect PDF form fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by describing the exact shape of what is surfaced (types, current values, checkbox on-states), which is more than the annotations provide.

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, zero waste, and the enumeration of returned attributes comes first so the agent understands the payoff immediately. The usage tip is a compact trailing sentence.

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-value explanation is not required and the description already characterizes the fields. It doesn't mention behavior for non-form PDFs or encrypted files, a minor gap for a read-only inspection tool.

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 0% for the single pdf_path parameter, so the description should ideally clarify expected path form. It only says "a PDF", leaving the format to inference. With one obvious required parameter, this is adequate but not compensating for the coverage gap.

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 (list) and resource (fillable fields in a PDF) and enumerates exactly what is returned: name, type, current value, required flag, on-state values for checkboxes/radios. That detail distinguishes it from the sibling fill/verify tools without ambiguity.

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 names exactly as returned when filling" gives clear downstream context linking it to pdf_form_fill. It doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over pdf_form_verify, but the inspect-vs-fill framing makes the intended position in the workflow clear.

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