pdfintact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it excels: it discloses that this is paid, asynchronous, per-page billed, reserves credits, takes real wall-clock time, returns a job_handle, and can double-charge on retries. It also provides measured accuracy caveats and confidence-flag behavior, which are essential for interpreting results.

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 long, but every section earns its place: core function, pipeline rationale, language-specific accuracy, billing/async behavior, input formats, idempotency, and auth requirements. It is front-loaded with the what and immediately follows with operational constraints, with 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?

For a complex, paid, asynchronous operation with no output schema and no annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It covers invocation prerequisites, parameter semantics, known failure modes, timing, billing, and the follow-up get_result flow, so an agent can decide whether and how to call it 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 covers the source object and idempotency_key only minimally. The description adds substantial meaning: URL is for public https sources up to ~200MB, base64 for inline data up to ~20MB, prefer URL for large files, and idempotency_key must be reused on retries to prevent double processing. This goes well 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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Convert a PDF into structured content' and lists the content types produced. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining that it returns a job_handle and that polling should be done via get_result.

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?

It gives explicit operational guidance: use get_result to poll instead of calling convert_pdf again, prefer URL for large files, reuse idempotency_key on retry to avoid double charging, and warns that the current unauthenticated session will fail. This fully addresses when and how to use the tool versus 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the authentication requirement and the fact that the call will fail until the account is connected: 'Requires sign-in (OAuth): this session is not authenticated, so calling this tool will fail until the PDFIntact account is connected and authorized.' It also explains the credit unit (1 page = 1 credit) and what will be returned, providing excellent transparency.

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 compact and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose and scope, immediately followed by concrete use cases. The second paragraph adds a necessary authentication warning without unnecessary detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It tells the agent why to call the tool (before conversion or after an error), what information will be returned (balance, expiring lot, purchase link), and the expected failure if not authenticated. Nothing important is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context about what 'balance' means (1 page = 1 credit) and the authentication prerequisite, though there are no parameter semantics to clarify. This satisfies the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 states a specific action ('Check the current PDFIntact credit balance') and resource (credit balance plus soonest-expiring credit lot), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is distinguished from sibling tools by its explicit reference to convert_pdf and get_result contexts, so an agent can tell it apart.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Useful before submitting a large PDF to convert_pdf, or after an insufficient_credits error...' This tells the agent when to call the tool. It doesn't describe when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives, but for a simple balance lookup with no direct sibling overlap, the guidance is sufficient.

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 polling contract, terminal states, account scoping with rejection as not found, and the OAuth requirement, all of which go well beyond a bare 'fetch result' statement.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then polling instructions, guardrails, and auth constraints. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter polling tool, the description covers the core lifecycle, terminal states, account scoping, and authentication. However, with no output schema present, it leaves the structured result format and any failed-state error details unspecified, which is the main remaining gap.

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% and the schema already describes job_handle as the handle returned by convert_pdf. The description adds value by reinforcing the source of the handle, explaining that it is account-scoped, and noting that foreign handles are rejected as not found.

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 and resource: 'Fetch the status and (once finished) the structured result of a job previously created by convert_pdf.' This clearly identifies the tool's role and distinguishes it from the sibling tools convert_pdf and get_balance.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: poll with the job_handle returned by convert_pdf until _meta.state is 'done' or 'failed'. It also gives a concrete when-not: do not call convert_pdf again while waiting, and warns that unauthenticated calls will fail until OAuth is connected.

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