pdf_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the search is semantic and mentions defaults and optional filter, but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it is read-only, rate limits, error handling, or what happens with no results. Basic but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is structured with a clear purpose statement followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It is not overly verbose and front-loads the main action. However, it could be slightly more concise by omitting obvious details.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main functionality but lacks details on return format (snippets?), error handling, or pagination. For a search tool with 3 parameters, it is adequate but not complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for all three parameters: query (search query), n_results (default 5, max 20), and module (optional filter). This goes beyond the bare schema and provides useful constraints.

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 clearly states the tool searches COMSOL PDF documentation using semantic search, specifying the resource (PDF docs) and action (search). It also mentions the scope (60+ modules, physics, modeling, API usage), distinguishing it from sibling tools like docs_get or docs_list.

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 description provides basic usage context via Args and Returns but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pdf_list_modules or pdf_search_status. It implies usage for finding information but lacks exclusions or guidance on when not to use.

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