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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by stating it does not extract text, returns specific categories and a confidence score, and is fast (10-50ms). It conveys that the tool performs triage without side effects, though it does not explicitly state 'read-only' or discuss error behavior. The decision guidance about OCR routing adds context beyond basic operation.

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 concise yet comprehensive, front-loading the primary purpose, then specifying return values, and finally providing actionable usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and the entire description fits in three sentences without redundancy. It is well-structured with an imperative usage directive that is easy to follow.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description fully explains return values: document type, confidence score, and exact 1-indexed pages needing OCR. It also covers when to use the tool, what the outcome implies, and next steps. For a simple single-parameter tool with rich behavioral guidance, the description is complete and self-sufficient.

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 provides 100% coverage with a detailed description of the 'path' parameter ('Absolute path, or path relative to an allowed root, of a .pdf file'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. There is no further information about path handling beyond what the schema already states.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Triage a local PDF without extracting its text' with specific outputs (classification, confidence, pages needing OCR). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it does not extract text, unlike pdf_extract, and by specifying its classification purpose. The verb 'triage' precisely conveys the lightweight, pre-extraction role.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'ALWAYS call this before pdf_extract on an unfamiliar or large document' and conditional routing: 'If it reports scanned, image_based, or encoding issues, do not extract — route the document to an OCR service instead.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool and when to avoid extraction, including alternatives.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses default truncation to protect context window, explains the recommended pagination strategy, and warns about critical failure conditions (encoding issues, no text layer, right-to-left script) where output must not be quoted as fact. This is rich behavioral disclosure.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states purpose, the second covers truncation and usage guidance, the third delivers warning/reliability information. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: output format (Markdown), truncation behavior, pagination strategy, warning handling, and prerequisite classification. It provides complete context for a 4-parameter extraction 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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, earning a baseline of 3. The description adds practical value by specifically recommending pages over maxChars for long documents, clarifying the intended usage of these parameters beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Extract a local PDF to Markdown' with specific preservation of headings, lists, and tables. This specific verb-resource-output combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like pdf_search and pdf_tables, which serve different purposes.

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 explicit guidance: 'Call pdf_classify first on unfamiliar documents' and advises using the pages parameter repeatedly rather than raising maxChars for long documents. This gives clear context and an explicit alternative workflow, exceeding basic requirements.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return behavior (matching pages with surrounding context) and an efficiency trait (cheaper). It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the search nature and usage guidance imply this. The gap is minor given the additional context provided.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second gives usage guidance with a specific alternative. Exceptionally concise and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value (matching pages with context). It also provides usage context and links to a sibling tool (pdf_extract). For a search tool with 5 params, this is complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal param-related meaning (e.g., 'surrounding context' hints at contextChars), but the schema already fully documents all parameters. No significant extra value is provided beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Find text inside a local PDF and return matching pages with surrounding context.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and contrasts with pdf_extract, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use this tool: 'use this first on long documents, then pdf_extract with the `pages` it reports.' Also notes it is 'much cheaper than pdf_extract when you only need to locate something,' giving clear alternative guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the detection mechanism (PDF drawing operations and text alignment, not OCR/model guesswork) and clarifies the output is limited to tables. This adds meaningful context beyond a simple 'extract tables' statement, though it does not discuss error handling or performance limitations.

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 three focused sentences: the first states the core action, the second gives a use case, and the third explains the underlying method. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose, and there is no redundant information or filler.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: what it returns, how it works, and when to use it. The Markdown output format is clearly stated, and the method explanation (drawing operations/text alignment) addresses common concerns about accuracy.

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 already provides 100% coverage for all three parameters, including descriptions for path, pages, and maxChars. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters without adding extra semantic value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return only the tables') and clearly identifies both the resource (local PDF) and the output format (Markdown). It explicitly differentiates itself from sibling tools by emphasizing it skips prose and focuses on tables, which pdf_extract, pdf_search, and pdf_classify do not.

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 states when to use this tool ('Useful for invoices, financial statements and reports where the numbers are the point'). It implies a clear use case for table-focused extraction, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for non-table extraction scenarios.

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