View PDF

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 discloses that the tool 'Shows page images and, when available, extracted bounding boxes,' which is behavioral output context. The 'PDF reader' phrasing implies a read-only surface, though it does not explicitly state read-only or mention permissions/rate limits. This is adequate for a viewer but not over-detailed.

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 action, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every sentence contributes value.

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 simple viewer tool with two parameters and a clear visual output, the description is complete: it explains what it does, what it shows, and when to use it. The mention of review_extraction also prevents misuse. No output schema exists, so the description's explanation of 'shows page images' serves as an adequate return description.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add extra syntax, format details, or relationships beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('document as a PDF reader/navigation surface') and explicitly contrasts with review_extraction, distinguishing it from at least one sibling. It clearly conveys that the tool is for visual page inspection with page images and bounding boxes.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this for quick visual page inspection; use review_extraction when the user is specifically verifying parser output.' This names an alternative and states when to use this tool versus another, which is exemplary.

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