eap_check_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It explains the tool returns pages, grade, issue list, and tag coverage, and clarifies it uses veraPDF. The cost behavior is also disclosed ('no credits charged'). There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 brief (two sentences) and well-structured. It fronts the purpose, then lists key outputs and requirements. No unnecessary words.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers inputs (URL constraints) and outputs (grade, issues, etc.). It mentions standards and cost. Lacks error handling details, but overall sufficient.

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 100%, but the description adds value by specifying that the URL must be publicly accessible and has a 50MB size limit, which is not in the schema description alone.

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 tool checks PDF accessibility compliance using specific standards (PDF/UA-1, ISO 14289-1) and lists the outputs (pages, grade, issue list, tag coverage). It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., convert, fix) by focusing on checking/analysis.

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 specifies that a publicly accessible URL is required and mentions the 50MB limit. It also notes 'included with membership — no credits charged'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the sibling tools are clearly different in function.

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