verify_extraction

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

The description discloses behavioral traits such as returning per-page audit statuses (usable/silently-empty/recovered/review/unverifiable), a headline with count of silently dropped pages, and an overall verdict with tamper-evident signature. It also explains the ground truth method (reusing pdfmux's audit pass). No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden and meets it well.

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 paragraph that introduces the core concept first ('Audit an extraction of a PDF...') and then adds detail. It is efficient with no wasted words, though slightly dense.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values but still summarizes them. It covers main use cases and parameter semantics. Complexity is moderate and all key aspects are addressed, with minor gaps like error scenarios.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning: it explains that extracted_text can be from another engine or omitted, and names the engine as a parameter. It could be more specific about fmt and engine values, but overall it compensates for schema gaps.

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 audits a PDF extraction for silently-dropped pages, specifying the verb 'audit', resource 'extraction of a PDF', and unique failure mode. It distinguishes from sibling tools like convert_pdf or extract_structured by focusing on verification rather than conversion or extraction.

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 explains when to use the tool: pass extracted_text from another engine for certification, or omit it for self-certification. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives beyond the two modes.

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