campus_research_index_pdf

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it returns a fresh analysisId even when reusing an existing index, readPages/verifiedEvidence are scoped to that analysis, the 20 MB / 500 page limits, the need to poll until ready, and a prompt-injection warning to ignore instructions embedded in the PDF. It also discloses that indexing does not summarize or validate claims, which is exactly the kind of expectation-setting the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the selection condition and the critical return values, and nearly every sentence carries information. It is dense to the point of being slightly run-on, packing IDs, limits, workflow, and safety into a single paragraph, but there is little true filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly covers return values (documentId, analysisId) and how to use them, plus limits, workflow, and safety caveats. An agent has everything needed to invoke and chain this tool; only the refresh parameter's semantics remain thin.

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 0% and the two parameters (url, refresh) are undocumented in the schema. The description constrains url to a public HTTPS PDF and mentions index reuse, but the refresh parameter is never explained (when to set it, what it re-does), so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (index a public HTTPS PDF) and scopes it precisely to PDFs longer than 20 pages where page locations are unknown. It also positions itself in a workflow ('first step') relative to the status/search/read/verify siblings, so an agent can tell it apart immediately.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition ('question spans chapters or page locations are unknown') and sequences the downstream flow: poll status, search the index, then read exact pages. The size threshold implicitly excludes short PDFs, though it never names the sibling that should handle them (e.g. read_pdf), so routing for the short-PDF case is left to inference.

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