search_pdf_text

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 describes the search operation and return values, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only (does not modify the PDF), nor does it mention error handling, performance, or limitations. The default for max_results is disclosed, but behavioral traits beyond that are vague.

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 concise and well-structured with a brief summary followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, no redundant information.

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 presence of many sibling tools (e.g., read_pdf_as_text, extract_pdf_tables), this description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose, inputs, and output format. It lacks information on edge cases (e.g., no matches found) but overall provides enough context for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 0% description coverage, but the tool description provides clear explanations for each parameter (file_path, query, pages, max_results) in the Args section, including optionality and defaults. It also describes the return structure in detail, compensating well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 searches for text in a PDF and returns match positions and context. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('PDF text'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like read_pdf_as_text (which extracts all text) and extract_pdf_tables (which extracts tables).

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 implies that this tool is for searching text within a PDF, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as read_pdf_as_text for full text extraction or get_pdf_text_stats for textual statistics. No exclusions or conditional guidance is provided.

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