read_pdf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool reads content/metadata and allows page specification, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: two sentences that efficiently convey core functionality without waste. Every sentence earns its place by stating the main purpose and a key feature.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and a feature, but lacks context on behavioral traits, output, or error handling, making it incomplete for a tool with no structured support.

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 schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'pages to extract,' which aligns with the 'pages' parameter but doesn't provide additional semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Reads content/metadata from one or more PDFs (local/URL).' It specifies the action (reads), resource (PDFs), and scope (content/metadata, multiple sources). However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings since none exist, so it can't achieve a perfect 5.

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 provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'Each source can specify pages to extract,' which hints at when to use page specification, but offers no explicit when/when-not scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives. With no sibling tools, this is less critical, but the guidance remains basic.

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