check_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Validate... and report' implies a non-destructive read, but it never states that the PDF is not modified, how encrypted files are handled, whether it fails or returns a problem list on invalid input, or what the report contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the terseness is achieved partly by omitting information the tool actually needs to convey.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and undocumented parameters mean the description must do more than one sentence. It omits what 'problems' are reported, how the result is returned, password handling, and the relationship to repair_pdf.

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?

Two parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning for either. In particular, the password parameter's role for encrypted PDFs is left completely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 (validate) and the target (structural integrity) with a reporting outcome, which is more informative than the bare name check_pdf. However, it never says the resource is a PDF file and never distinguishes itself from the adjacent sibling repair_pdf, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative repair_pdf. The check-then-repair workflow is exactly the decision an agent faces here, and the description leaves it entirely unaddressed.

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