Inspect PDF Fonts

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

Annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. Description adds value by detailing what properties are returned (name, type, encoding, embedded/subset status, pages), which is beyond annotation scope. No contradiction.

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?

Well-structured with summary, Args, Returns, Examples. Front-loaded with clear purpose. Each section is concise and informative, though the examples could be slightly tighter.

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 output schema, description adequately covers return data. Context of multiple siblings is addressed by specific use-case examples. Sufficient for an agent to understand tool purpose and output.

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 baseline 3. Description largely repeats schema for file_path and response_format, but the Returns section explains the output structure, adding some semantic value beyond schema.

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 tool lists all fonts in a PDF with properties. It provides specific verb ('List') and resource ('fonts used in a PDF document'), and distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., extract_tables, read_text) by targeting a unique aspect of PDF content.

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?

Examples explicitly state when to use: checking font embedding for PDF/A/X compliance, identifying font types/encodings, finding pages using specific fonts. While no explicit exclusions or alternatives are given, the examples give clear context for typical use cases relative to siblings.

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