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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the call returns an extraction status, implying an asynchronous job-style operation rather than an immediate result, which is meaningful beyond the schema. It omits permissions, cost/rate limits, and whether repeated triggers re-run OCR or are idempotent.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the action is stated first. Slightly sparse rather than padded, and the second sentence is arguably redundant given an output schema exists.

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?

Output schema covers return values, so that gap is forgiven, but with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation the description leaves the agent guessing about the two required IDs, permissions, and whether extraction is async. For a tool whose siblings include upload_document and list_documents, it should say where this fits in the document workflow.

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% — neither doc_id nor household_id has any documented meaning. The description mentions 'a document' generically but never explains what the two required identifiers are, why household_id is needed for a document extraction, or what format they take. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource — trigger OCR/data extraction on a document — which an agent can distinguish from read-only siblings like get_document_detail or upload_document. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings or clarify whether extraction is distinct from fetching already-extracted data.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisite call (e.g. must the document be uploaded first?), and no named alternative. The word 'Trigger' implies on-demand invocation but nothing tells the agent under what conditions to pick this over update_document or get_document_detail.

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