summarise_pdf

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ('500 sats via Lightning') and the structured output fields, which adds significant transparency. However, it omits details like authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether the PDF must be publicly accessible.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and output, the second adds cost, the third lists use cases. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 simple parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, output, cost, and usage context. It lacks information on error handling or document size limits, but for a tool of this complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides (url and max_pages). The cost mention is behavioral, not parameter-specific.

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's action ('Summarise a PDF document from a URL') and the output structure ('title, key points, sentiment, topics, and word count'). It distinguishes from siblings like summarise_webpage (which works on webpages) and analyse_contract (likely contract-specific) by specifying usage for 'research papers, reports, contracts, any PDF'.

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 lists use cases ('research papers, reports, contracts, any PDF'), providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or offer alternatives beyond what's implied by sibling tool names.

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