mcp-pdf-tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the core behavior but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention output format (e.g., plain text, structured data), error handling (e.g., invalid page ranges), performance aspects (e.g., large PDFs), or side effects (e.g., file modifications). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters and behavioral complexity. It lacks details on output format, error conditions, and usage context relative to siblings. While concise, it doesn't compensate for the missing structured information, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Absolute path to the PDF file', 'Start page (1-indexed)'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying page-range usage, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Extract text') and resource ('from a specific page range of a PDF'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pdf_extract_text (which likely extracts all text) by specifying page-range extraction, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pdf_extract_text or pdf_search. It mentions 'specific page range' but doesn't clarify scenarios where this is preferred over full-text extraction or search-based extraction, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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