list_pdf_document_placeholders

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the action without mentioning read-only nature, authorization needs, rate limits, or output format. For a simple list operation, this is insufficient.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words. Every word earns its place, achieving maximum conciseness.

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?

The tool has a simple single-parameter input and no output schema, but the description does not specify what is returned (e.g., list of placeholder IDs or objects). With no annotations, it lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand behavior.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter (document_id) described as 'ID del PDF'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists placeholders/signature fields of a PDF, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_pdf_document_signer_placeholders, which might list placeholders per signer, so it's clear but not fully distinctive.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools exist for similar purposes (e.g., list_pdf_document_signer_placeholders, list_pdf_document_signers), but the description provides no exclusions or context for selection.

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