preview_pdf_pages

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates read-only safety, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it rasterizes only the first pages rather than the whole document, and it is restricted to app-only contexts.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the access constraint and the core action. There is no wasted wording or unnecessary repetition.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits when to prefer this over read_document_bytes or list_policy_library, and it leaves the uri parameter underspecified, so it is adequate but not fully 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it only hints that uri identifies a policy PDF and pages refers to the first pages. It does not specify uri format, page range, bounds, or the meaning of pages beyond an intuitive default.

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 ('rasterize') and resource ('cited policy PDF'), and narrows the operation to 'first pages'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_document_bytes (raw bytes) and list_policy_library (listing policies).

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'App-only' is an availability constraint, not a routing cue, and no sibling tools are mentioned.

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