Inspect a PDF

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description reinforces this with 'the file is never modified,' which is useful but largely redundant. It adds a hint that page numbers are reliable for later operations, but does not go much beyond annotation coverage.

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 tightly written sentences. The first states the output and scope, the second states safety and usage timing. No filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only inspection tool with a single well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the tool's purpose, safety, and when to call it. It does not discuss error behavior, but that is a minor gap given the overall simplicity and available structured metadata.

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 the 'path' parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds the contextual phrase 'of a local PDF,' which lightly reinforces that the path must point to a local file, but it does not add substantive meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Report') and a precise resource scope: page count, per-page dimensions, and metadata of a local PDF. It distinguishes itself from the sibling merge/extract tools by focusing on inspection, so an agent can clearly tell it apart.

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 explicitly advises calling the tool 'before merging or extracting' to validate page numbers, giving clear context for when it should be used. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the instruction is direct and actionable.

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