Split Pdf

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

The annotations include openWorldHint and idempotentHint, which cover some behavior. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether the original PDF is modified, whether the output is a new PDF, or how out-of-range pages are handled. It does not contradict annotations but fails to add value beyond them.

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 a single concise sentence with no waste. However, it is perhaps too brief to convey important usage context, but for a simple tool it is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the action.

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 3 parameters, an output schema, and is part of a larger set of PDF tools. The description lacks context on when to use it, how to select between source_url and file_base64, and what the output represents. Given the available schema and annotations, the description is insufficiently complete for an agent to confidently use the tool without additional inference.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it does align with the pages parameter. Given high coverage, a baseline of 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 verb 'extract' and the resource 'PDF', and specifies it deals with pages/ranges. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like merge, compress, rotate, etc. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it explain the choice between source_url and file_base64. It is a single declarative sentence without any usage context.

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