Extract Pages From PDF

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: the file is uploaded to an external service (conv2pdf) and the call consumes one conversion from the quota, which an agent must know given the sibling get_quota.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core behavior (subset extraction, order preserved) front-loaded before the deployment/quota note. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers the operation, output nature (a new PDF), ordering, and the quota/upload side effect; the schema covers file paths and password. Only the exact return value/shape is unstated, which is minor.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema (pages syntax, password handling, input/output path defaults and no-overwrite rule). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Keeps some pages of a PDF in a new PDF') and clarifies that page order is preserved, which distinguishes it from siblings like merge_pdfs or rotate_pdf. It does not name an alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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 by the clear purpose and the sibling set (extract a subset of pages rather than merge/rotate/convert), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and nothing pointing an agent to merge_pdfs versus this tool. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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