search_pdf_text

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that results include page numbers, but does not disclose search behavior (case sensitivity, substring, pattern matching), performance, or any side effects. The output schema exists but is not described, leaving agents uninformed about the return format.

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 a single concise sentence (12 words) with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for its purpose, though it could benefit from slight structural improvements like bullet points if more details were added.

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 has 2 simple parameters and an output schema (not shown in description), the description fails to provide enough context for effective agent use. It does not specify search options (case sensitivity, whole word), output format (list of matches, positions), or any limitations (e.g., large files). The agent may misinterpret the capabilities.

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% (both parameters are described in the schema). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate for any missing 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 tool's purpose: 'Search for text in a PDF file and return results with page numbers.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (PDF file), and output (results with page numbers). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_pdf_info (file info) or read_pdf_text (extract all text).

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?

No guidelines on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, if the agent needs to extract all text from a PDF, read_pdf_text would be more appropriate, but this is not mentioned. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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