pdfmux

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: returns tables with headers/rows, detects key-value pairs with auto-normalization (dates, amounts, rates), and provides schema-mapped output if a schema is given. However, it omits details on error handling, performance, or limitations like file size constraints.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists outputs and optional features in a single, well-structured sentence. Every phrase adds value, such as specifying extraction types and normalization details, with no redundant or vague language.

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 the tool's complexity (data extraction from PDFs), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It covers the main functionality and outputs but could improve by addressing potential issues like unsupported PDF formats or quality parameter implications. The output schema reduces the need to detail return values.

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 mentions 'map to a JSON schema' and 'if a schema is provided,' which adds meaning for the 'schema' parameter, but does not explain 'file_path' or 'quality' beyond what the schema titles imply. The description partially compensates but leaves two parameters inadequately covered.

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 specific action ('extract structured data from a PDF') and resources involved (tables as JSON, key-value pairs, schema mapping). It distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_pdf, batch_convert, convert_pdf, and get_pdf_metadata by focusing on data extraction rather than analysis, conversion, or metadata retrieval.

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 implies usage for extracting structured data from PDFs, particularly tables and key-value pairs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_pdf. It mentions optional schema mapping, which provides some context, but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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