Extract Pages

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

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing that document-level information (tagged structure, XMP, attachments, AcroForm, bookmarks) is stripped, that losses are surfaced in warnings, and that follow-up tools may be needed. This is valuable and consistent with idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false.

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?

Four sentences with the core purpose first, then behavioral caveats, then actionable follow-up. No filler; each sentence adds unique information.

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 5-param tool with no output schema, the description plus fully documented schema covers the outcome, side effects, warnings, and follow-up. Missing explicit sibling differentiation is a usage gap, but not a completeness gap for calling the tool correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all five parameters, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates the pages-order concept but doesn't add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Create a new PDF') and resource ('only the given pages'), and adds the order-preservation detail. It is clear but does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools such as split_pdf/delete_pages/reorder_pages, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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 when to use it: to extract a subset of pages, and explicitly notes that order preservation means it can also reorder. It provides no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, and the follow-up guidance is after-use rather than tool-selection guidance.

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