rca_guide_pdf_preview

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: this is a pre-ingestion verification step, OCR requires Tesseract as a dependency, and the tool returns rich preview data such as detected_strategy and estimated_quality. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well organized and front-loaded with the core purpose and mandatory ordering before ingestion. The strategy and return sections are clear and compact. Minor deductions for the noisy 'Starter+' label and an Args line that is incomplete, missing token and client_id.

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 preview tool with rich annotations and an input schema, the description is largely complete: it states purpose, ordering, strategy options, dependencies, and return fields. It does not explicitly mention authentication, but the schema requires token, so that information is available to the agent. Overall, it gives enough context to select and invoke the tool 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 description adds real meaning for the strategy parameter, explaining each strategy's intended use case and recommending auto as the default. However, it only lists pdf_base64, n_pages, and strategy in the Args section, omitting the required token and client_id. Given the low schema description coverage signal, it does not fully compensate for all parameter semantics, though the schema itself covers the omitted fields.

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 states a specific action ('Preview a PDF document'), a clear resource ('a PDF document'), and the goal ('verify parsing quality'). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling rca_guide_ingest_pdf, which is the full ingestion step.

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?

It explicitly says 'Always call this BEFORE rca_guide_ingest_pdf', giving a precise ordering rule. It also provides strategy selection guidance by explaining when to use text_native, ocr, table, mixed, or auto, which helps the agent choose the right parsing mode.

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