split_pdf_by_swiss_qr

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

No annotations are provided, and the description carries the full burden. It only mentions the API endpoint and parameter mappings, without disclosing actual behavior such as whether the original PDF is modified, what output files are produced, or how errors are handled. This is a significant gap for a splitting tool.

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 run-on sentence that mixes API endpoint details, parameter lists, and mapping notes, making it hard to parse. It is compact but poorly structured, lacking clear separation between purpose, parameters, and usage.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is inadequate. It lacks critical context about the output (e.g., split PDFs are written to output_dir), behavioral semantics, and parameter meanings, making it impossible for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only lists parameter names and a few defaults. It does not explain the meaning of barcode_filter, barcode_type, or split_qr_page beyond enum values, and it omits output_dir and request_doc_name entirely. This is insufficient for an agent to set parameters correctly.

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 'Split a PDF by Swiss QR' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from generic split_pdf or split_pdf_by_text tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling split_pdf_by_barcode, so it misses the full sibling differentiation.

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. The 'Swiss QR' qualifier implies a use case, but there are no explicit context indicators, exclusions, or alternative tool references, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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