Check a PDF for PDF/UA-1 conformance

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds behavioral details: it downloads the PDF, queues a check, counts against daily quota, and returns immediately. This goes beyond annotations by explaining the async workflow and quota impact.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core purpose and constraints, then add essential workflow info. No redundant phrases; every sentence contributes.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, workflow, quota, and follow-up action (poll with get_pdf_check). The presence of an output schema is acknowledged, and the description complements it well.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the url parameter. The description reiterates 'public PDF URL' but adds no new semantics beyond the schema; the main value is in behavioral context, not parameter-specific details.

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 downloads a public PDF and runs a PDF/UA-1 conformance check, specifying exact checks (structure, tags, reading order) and explicitly distinguishing it from a full WCAG audit, which differentiates it from siblings like scan_url.

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 the free tier quota and the asynchronous nature (returns id, poll with get_pdf_check). It implicitly advises against use for full WCAG audits, providing some when-not guidance, though explicit alternatives are not named.

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