pdf_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying what it inspects (e.g., encryption, form fields, pages without text), but it does not explain handling of password-protected PDFs or the output format, which is partially covered by the output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists the tool's capabilities without wasted words. It is a sentence fragment rather than a full sentence, but it remains clear and appropriately sized.

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?

With an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description provides enough detail about what is returned. However, it omits usage guidance and parameter semantics, leaving gaps for correct invocation and alternative selection.

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 0% for two parameters (path, password), and the description does not mention either parameter or how to use them. It fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 enumerates specific information the tool retrieves: page count, metadata, encryption, form fields, attachments, and pages lacking a text layer. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_text, render_page, or ocr, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'Retrieve' or 'Get'.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_sensitive_data or extract_transactions. The description only lists outputs, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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