search_and_open

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'opens' but does not define what that means—whether it opens a viewer, returns content, or affects state. Side effects, permissions, or return behavior are not disclosed, leaving significant ambiguity.

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?

A single sentence of 12 words conveys the core purpose efficiently. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Search' and the resource 'PDF', making the tool's function immediately clear with no wasted 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?

Despite having a complete schema and an output schema, the description lacks crucial behavioral context about the 'open' action. It does not explain if the tool returns search result metadata, opens an external viewer, or navigates within a document. This gap makes it incomplete for reliable agent invocation.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already explains (e.g., result_index is 1-indexed). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 action: 'Search for text in PDF and open to the specified result.' It specifies the resource (PDF) and the operation (search and open), distinguishing it from siblings like search_pdf_text (which likely only returns results without opening) and open_pdf_page (which opens by page number).

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: use when you want to both search and navigate to a result. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, nor are alternatives like search_pdf_text mentioned. The agent must infer context from the description alone.

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