Read AcroForm fields

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds useful behavior details: password handling for encrypted PDFs and a token-frugal 'summary' response mode that returns only fieldCount. It does not disclose every edge case, but the core behavioral traits are well covered by the annotations and description together.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence earns a place. The long first sentence packs critical output attributes efficiently, followed by short, actionable notes about fill_form, password, and verbosity. There is no excess filler or repetition.

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 annotations, the rich parameter schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the remaining necessary context. It tells the agent when to call it, how to handle encrypted files, and how to customise response size, which is complete for a read-only enumeration tool.

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?

All four parameters already have thorough schema descriptions, so the baseline is met regardless. The description briefly mentions password and verbosity behavior, but those details are largely restating what is already in the schema. It adds little beyond what the input schema conveys.

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 a read-only list of AcroForm fields and enumerates what is returned: name, type, value, flags, options, and widget placements. It also ties the operation to the sibling fill_form tool, so its role in the workflow is unmistakable.

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 says 'Call it BEFORE fill_form to learn the names,' giving the agent a concrete, actionable use case and emphasizing that this tool is a prerequisite for fill_form. It does not mention when not to use it or provide other alternative tools, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

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