PDF: highlights and notes

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: only annotations saved to the file are visible, and the default scope is the currently open document. It doesn't cover pagination or result ordering, but the key visibility caveat is disclosed.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the first sentence ('All highlights, notes and attachments saved in the PDF') is largely restated by the second sentence ('All annotations in the PDF'), so one of the two sentences is partly redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value formatting needn't be spelled out, and the description still names the fields. Safety is covered by annotations. The remaining gap is the undocumented 'page'/'path' parameters, which is minor for a simple read tool.

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% and neither 'page' nor 'path' is documented in the schema. The description's word 'page' appears in a list of return fields, not as a filter explanation, and 'path' is only obliquely hinted at via 'default: the open document.' The parameters are largely left for the agent to infer.

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 resource and operation: retrieving all highlights, notes and attachments saved in a PDF, including the fields returned (page, type, author, text, note). It is distinct enough from write siblings like add_note/mark_text/remove_annotation, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is a scoping hint that the default target is "the open document," but no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as get_selection or page_text. An agent gets no criteria for choosing this tool over its read siblings.

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