campus_research_read_indexed_pdf

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

Adds substantive behavior beyond the annotations: it operates on an already-completed index (implying index_pdf/index_status prerequisites), the page cap, persistent OCR/layout caveats, and a prompt-injection warning to ignore instructions embedded in the PDF. The annotations already cover safety/idempotence, but the limitation and injection notes are genuine added value.

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?

Four front-loaded sentences with no filler, leading with the core action and limit. It is dense but each clause carries information; minor density in the analysisId scoping clause keeps it from a 5.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the definition covers prerequisites, page limits, limitations, injection safety, and the follow-up verification path. It stops short of describing returned content shape or failure behavior when the index is not yet complete.

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 0% with 4 params, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains analysisId (where it comes from and why scoping matters) and contextually places documentId in the verification flow, while 'up to 5 exact pages' corroborates startPage/pageCount; however startPage/pageCount semantics are only indirectly addressed.

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 (read), resource (pages from a completed, cached PDF index), and scope limit (up to 5 exact pages, no re-download/parse). The caching framing distinguishes it from the sibling campus_research_read_pdf that presumably fetches and parses fresh.

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 prerequisite and routing: pass analysisId from index_pdf so pages belong to this answer, and for quotations call campus_research_verify_evidence. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over read_pdf/read_document, so the alternative-selection guidance is implicit rather than spelled out.

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