pdf_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that with useful context: the exact fields returned, the meaning of the 'mode' value (stdio or http), and a concrete worked example, which tells the agent what a healthy response looks like.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the rest is scannable structure. The 'Return Format' block partly duplicates the output schema, which is slight redundancy, but the example adds concrete value rather than padding.

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 no-argument, read-only diagnostic tool this is complete: the agent knows what it does, what comes back, and has a runnable example. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object with additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The provided example call (await pdf_status()) reinforces that no arguments are needed, which is the correct baseline for a 0-param tool.

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?

States a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('server status') and enumerates exactly what is reported: version, uptime, and registered tool count. No sibling in the pdf_* family serves this diagnostic role, so the agent can route to it unambiguously from the name and first sentence alone.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the health/diagnostic call, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives such as pdf_help. It is adequate but leaves the agent to infer the trigger condition.

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