get_pdf_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the loading prerequisite but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or explain behavior with invalid document IDs. The tone suggests a getter, but this is not made explicit.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains zero fluff. The prerequisite is stated efficiently without repetition. It is an excellent example of conciseness.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the essential context: what it does and the necessary prerequisite. However, it could be slightly more complete by contrasting with list_loaded_pdfs (e.g., 'Use for a single document, not enumeration') to help the agent choose among siblings. No output schema explanation is needed since one exists.

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?

The schema description for document_id is already clear ('Identifier of the loaded document'), and the tool description enhances it by clarifying that the document must be loaded first using load_pdf. This adds contextual meaning to the parameter, helping the agent understand valid input values beyond the raw schema.

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's function: 'Get basic information about a loaded PDF document.' The verb 'get' with resource 'loaded PDF document' is specific and distinct from sibling tools like extract_text_from_pdf or list_loaded_pdfs. It immediately sets expectations.

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 provides a clear prerequisite: 'The document must be loaded first using load_pdf.' This indicates when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention when not to use it. The guidance is present but minimal compared to examples like get_calls.

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