Validate Tagged PDF

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

Annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral context by listing all performed checks (8 specific checks) and return values. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Checks performed, Examples). It is somewhat lengthy but every section adds value. Front-loaded with purpose.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple checks, no output schema), the description fully conveys inputs, outputs (detailed return fields), and examples. Agent can reliably invoke and interpret results.

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% with both parameters fully described. The description restates parameter info but adds default value. No additional semantic value beyond schema for parameter understanding.

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 title 'Validate Tagged PDF' and description explicitly state validation of PDF/UA tagged structure requirements. The description lists specific checks (e.g., heading hierarchy, table tags) that clearly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'inspect_tags' or 'validate_metadata'.

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 clear examples of when to use the tool (e.g., check PDF/UA compliance, identify missing tags). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the examples give sufficient context for agent to decide.

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