verify_pdf

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' More usefully, with no output schema present, it discloses the return shape (ok, pages, checks with name/ok/detail, and text), which is genuine behavioral context beyond the 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?

Front-loads the purpose, then usage, then return values in three compact sentences with little waste. The enumerated check list is dense but each item earns its place by defining what ATS-safe means.

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?

For a read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and the return structure, which is what an agent needs. It leaves some ambiguity about interpreting individual `checks` details, but that is a minor gap.

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 100%, so both `path` and `max_pages` are fully documented in the schema already. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (check) and resource (any PDF) with an explicit ATS-safety goal, enumerating the concrete checks: one column, no ligatures, dates on the role's line, text extractability, page count. It is clearly distinct from the many write-oriented sibling tools, and the build_cv reference anchors it in the workflow.

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 usage context: run it on a CV from any tool, and it notes that build_cv already runs it on the CVs it renders, which implicitly tells the agent when it is redundant. It stops short of an explicit exclusion statement, but the alternative and its condition are effectively named.

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