page_number

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that page numbers are added, but does not explain whether the original file is modified, whether a new file is created, or any other side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that likely writes to a PDF.

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 a single, clear, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It efficiently conveys the core 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?

The description plus the rich schema provides enough to understand the primary function and available parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks important context about output file behavior and does not position the tool relative to similar numbering/stamping tools.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all five parameters clearly documented. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, such as format examples or positional defaults, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: adding page numbers to each page of a PDF. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool bates_number_pdf, which also adds numbers, but 'page numbers' is distinct enough for most intents.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bates_number_pdf, watermark, or add_header_footer. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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