Read PDF metadata

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

Although annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, the description adds valuable detail about exactly what is returned: title, author, dates with time zone, custom fields, XMP metadata, and document ID. It also notes that XMP XML can be optionally returned, which compensates for the lack of an 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 front-loaded with the core operation and then lists returned fields efficiently. The inclusion of a web version URL is extraneous but does not significantly detract from an otherwise compact definition.

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 that there is no output schema, the description does a good job enumerating the returned metadata fields and noting the optional XMP XML return. It omits error behavior or edge-case handling, but for a read-only inspection tool the coverage is largely complete.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description's mention of optionally returning XMP XML loosely maps to includeXmp but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('Show') and resource ('PDF metadata') and enumerates the specific fields returned, making the operation easy to identify. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling pdf_info tool, so it falls short of the highest clarity score.

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 implies that this tool reads metadata but offers no guidance on when to choose it over siblings like pdf_info or image_exif_read. There are no conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites stated.

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