View a PDF as accessible HTML

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the streaming nature, progressive parsing, and the three return URLs. It also transparently notes the reserved 'wcag' policy is not yet implemented, adding trustworthy behavioral context.

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 moderately concise and front-loads the core purpose. While it includes some marketing language ('LIVE, streaming, screen-reader-friendly'), every sentence provides useful information, and the parenthetical adds important caveat without excessive verbosity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides substantial contextual information: behavior, return URLs, streaming, and usage. It falls short only in fully documenting parameters (notably title) and not mentioning potential error conditions, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to act.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It clearly explains pdf_url (public URL) and hints at policy, but fails to mention the 'title' parameter at all. Policy is only described in a reserved, not-yet-implemented context, leaving the actual 'none' behavior unexplained.

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: converting a PDF into a live, streaming, accessible HTML twin. It uses a specific verb ('Drop a PDF') and defines the resource and expected output, distinguishing it from siblings like view_pdf or view_structured.

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?

It explicitly states the primary use case: 'Use this to make any PDF readable by assistive tech.' This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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