Inspect document layout (dry run)

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already cover safety, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: it does NOT generate a PDF, it is deterministic, and it has a known engine gap for 'toc' blocks which can make pagination one page short. The token-frugal usage note ('verbosity:'summary', fields:['totalPages']') adds practical behavioral guidance. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first sentence states the purpose plus output shape, the second defines the parameter semantics through the sibling relation, the third discloses a known limitation, and the fourth summarizes safety and efficiency. Front-loaded with the most critical fact (no PDF), no filler, and not bloated despite the large schema. The description is short but complete.

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 description is complete for a complex 12-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and a present output schema. It covers the tool's role among siblings, its return semantics, its known edge case, and its performance/token profile. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing — it distinguishes itself from the sibling, states contract with the parameters, and flags the only caveat in the measurement.

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 already has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3 even without extra description. The description adds cross-cutting semantic value by saying that all these parameters behave exactly as in generate_basic_pdf, meaning the schema descriptions can be interpreted consistently across tools. It also highlights the dependency: pass the same values to get a matching page count. It doesn't duplicate per-parameter schema detail but does add meaning about parameter usage intent.

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 opens with 'Pagination preview WITHOUT generating a PDF', a specific verb-resource pairing that immediately distinguishes this tool from generate_basic_pdf. The purpose is further sharpened by listing the exact output: page count and where every block lands (page, x, top, width, height in points). It is far beyond a tautology and clearly names the sibling it is not.

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 instructs the agent to pass the same inputs that would be given to generate_basic_pdf, including the full list of layout-affecting parameters. It names the sibling tool directly and clarifies the precondition/use case: validate pagination before generating a PDF. The line about a toc measured as 0 pt also tells the agent when the page count may be unreliable.

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