Subpay Document Reader

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. It discloses that the service is 'Free' and that it returns pricing, payment-network, and terms information, but it does not cover authentication, rate limits, or response form. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 very short and front-loads 'Free.' before listing the covered topics. It contains no redundant sentences or filler. The fragmentary phrasing is terse, but it is efficient for a simple metadata tool.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main informational topics an 'about' tool would return. It omits explicit usage guidance and any auth/rate-limit context beyond 'Free,' but for this simple metadata tool it is close to adequate.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so the schema places no semantic burden on the description. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately does not invent parameter details.

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 as service metadata and enumerates the topics it covers: what extract_document reads, its price, payment networks, and terms. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling extract_document by being about that tool rather than performing extraction. However, it lacks an explicit verb and the tool name 'about' is generic, so the purpose is clear but not sharply framed.

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 implies when to use the tool by listing the information it provides, but it does not explicitly state when to call it versus alternatives or any exclusions. There is no direct guidance such as calling it before extract_document to check pricing or terms. Usage is therefore only implied.

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 and does so well: it discloses pricing ($0.04/page up to 25 pages in USDC via x402), that the cost is quoted before payment, that failed reads are free, and that it performs arithmetic checks. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking a paid tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then return values, then pricing. The enumeration of returned fields is long but each item is meaningful for an agent that cannot see an output schema. Slightly dense but free of 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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to describe return values in detail (gross this period, retainage, contract sum, balance to finish, payment due; change-order type/number/amount/date), and it also covers input limits and cost. Nothing essential to calling it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (gc, document, fileName, subcontractor) are already documented in the schema. The description adds the 3 MB/25-page limits and mentions GC/subcontractor context indirectly but adds no syntax beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (reads) and resource (AIA G702/G703 pay applications, change orders, Procore/Textura versions) and the transformation (PDF into structured JSON). This is unmistakably distinct from the unrelated siblings 'about' and 'request_capability'.

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 scopes usage by naming exactly which document types are supported (G702, G703, Procore/Textura, change orders), which lets an agent decide fit. It does not state exclusions or point to an alternative, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so little routing guidance is needed.

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 full burden. It usefully discloses cost ('Free') and a privacy constraint ('No personal information'), which are real behavioral facts, but it says nothing about whether a durable request record is created, what confirmation the caller gets, or any rate limits.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the key fact ('Free.') and then the action, examples, purpose, and constraint. Nothing is padded.

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 and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what to submit, that it's free, and the privacy boundary. It omits what happens after submission (acknowledgement, follow-up), which is a minor gap for a lightweight feedback 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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes one of them ('the most you'd pay per read' -> maxPricePerReadUsd) and adds no syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 action (tell Subpay about a document or field it can't yet read) and the resource it targets, and explicitly frames it as a gap relative to the sibling extract_document. An agent can tell this apart from extract_document and about without opening any schema.

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 condition that selects this tool is explicit: use it for a document/field extract_document doesn't support yet, and it explains the downstream purpose ('used to decide what to build next'). It stops short of an explicit when-not statement, but the routing against the sibling is clear.

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