document_info

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the pagination cap of 100 pages, which is genuinely useful operational context, but says nothing about error behavior, whether text-layer availability is reported per page or per document, or the cost of the call.

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?

Two compact sentences with the payload (what you get) front-loaded ahead of the operational constraint. No filler, though the second sentence is a bare fragment that could more explicitly tie the 100-page cap to the limit parameter.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values; it lists the three data points but not their shape (per-page vs. aggregate, units, types). Combined with 0% parameter coverage and no output schema, an agent can guess the intent but not the exact calling contract.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters and largely fails. "Paginated" loosely gestures at start_page/limit and the 100-page ceiling contradicts the schema default of limit=50 without explaining the relationship, and the required "file" parameter is never described (path? URL? format?).

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?

Names the specific resource (a PDF document) and the exact data returned: page count, page sizes, and text-layer availability. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like page_text or page_render, though it never states an explicit verb (inspect/retrieve) or that it operates on a single file.

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?

"Paginated, maximum 100 pages" hints at how to iterate, but there is no statement of when to call this versus list_documents or search_text, no prerequisites, and no note about what happens for non-PDF or missing files. Usage must be inferred from the sibling names alone.

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