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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by positioning the tool as a pre-automation validation step and disclosing the cost ('$0.25 per document'). No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no filler: the first states the action and scope, the second gives the usage condition and cost. Every sentence earns its place, and the key information is 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?

The description is strong for selection and basic invocation, but with 0% schema coverage it leaves gaps around the requiredFields parameter and the exact meaning of profile-specific validation. The output schema covers return values, so that omission is acceptable, but input semantics are only partially explained.

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. It maps concepts like 'invoices, contracts, tenders' to the profile enum and 'required fields' to the requiredFields parameter, but it does not explain the full enum set (including 'generic'), how requiredFields should be formatted, or what 'source evidence' means operationally.

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 ('Check'), a concrete resource scope ('invoices, contracts, tenders, and text documents'), and a clear outcome ('required fields and source evidence'). It also distinguishes this tool from extraction-oriented siblings by framing it as validation against a known profile before downstream automation.

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 an explicit usage condition: 'Use when a text document must be checked against a known profile such as an invoice.' This is clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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