PDF Reader MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format ('Returns matching text with context and page numbers'), which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like maximum file size, search performance, error conditions, or authentication requirements that would help an agent understand operational constraints.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the purpose, the second specifies the return format. No wasted words, front-loaded with core functionality, and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, search operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of what the tool does and what it returns. However, it lacks details about error handling, performance characteristics, or limitations that would make it fully complete for agent decision-making.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete, but provides no additional semantic context.

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 specific action ('Search for specific text'), target resource ('within a PDF file'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on text search rather than metadata extraction (pdf-metadata) or full content reading (read-pdf). It provides a complete purpose statement with verb+resource+differentiation.

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?

The description implies usage context (searching within PDFs) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like read-pdf for full content or pdf-metadata for file information. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives are provided, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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