Okular: show a page to the user

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context by noting the target defaults to the current document and that the document will be opened if needed — a genuine side effect not captured by annotations — but says nothing about page-number validity, range errors, or what happens if the jump fails.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the precise semantics of the parameters. The opening sentence slightly restates the second, but there is no 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a two-parameter navigation tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, the description supplies the essentials (target page, default document, open-if-needed); only page-numbering and error behavior are unaddressed.

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%, so the description carries the burden and largely does: it explains that `page` is the destination and that `path` defaults to the current document (opening it if necessary). It does not specify page numbering (1-based?) or out-of-range behavior, leaving a small 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?

The description states a specific verb (jump) and resource (Okular page/document), so an agent can tell it apart from siblings such as page_text, viewer_state, or outline. It is clear and concrete, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'for the user' indicates this is the navigation/display action, and the parenthetical clarifies the current-document default. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives like viewer_state or page_text.

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