get_pdf_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return shape (file path plus embedded PDF resource), which is genuinely useful. It does not state that this is a non-destructive read with no project side effects, nor that the caller's client must support embedded resources, and the 50-page cap appears only in the schema.

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?

Three short clauses, no filler, and the usage condition is front-loaded right after the purpose. The opening is a fragment rather than a complete sentence, which slightly hurts front-loading clarity but wastes no words.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does just enough by describing what is returned (path + embedded PDF). It omits the safety profile of a read operation and any mention of client-side requirements for consuming the embedded resource, leaving meaningful gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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%: the pages parameter documents the "3-5,8" syntax and the 50-page limit, and document documents the SHA-256-prefix-or-numeric-ID forms. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 identifies the resource and the output form precisely: the requested original pages delivered as a new PDF file, plus a file path and embedded resource. It falls short of a clean verb+resource statement (it opens with a sentence fragment) and never names the sibling it competes with, but an agent can tell what it produces.

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?

"Use it when your client can read a PDF" gives an explicit selection condition and implicitly routes non-PDF-capable clients elsewhere (get_page_image), which is real guidance. It stops short of naming the alternative explicitly, so the agent must infer the fallback rather than being told.

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