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: it discloses size/page limits, that the entire document is recognized page by page, that processing is asynchronous (poll afterward), and that billing is per page. It omits auth requirements, failure/timeout behavior, and any cost magnitude, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and hard limits, then use cases, then the follow-up workflow, then tier/billing notes. No redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the async submit-then-poll lifecycle is explained. What remains missing is the meaning of file_name and the accepted format of document_url, which matter for a tool whose schema documents nothing.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and only partly does. It clarifies tier semantics (prompt only takes effect in the accurate tier) and implies document constraints (PDF, ≤200MB, ≤500 pages), but leaves file_name completely unexplained and does not specify whether document_url is a URL, upload token, or base64 payload.

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 (submit a PDF document recognition task) plus scope details: whole-document, page-by-page recognition, ≤200MB, ≤500 pages. It also distinguishes itself from the polling sibling by naming get_document_task, so an agent knows this is the initiation step, not the retrieval step.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use context (scanned contracts, books, reports) and an explicit follow-up workflow (poll with get_document_task after submission). It does not state when to prefer a different submission tool (e.g., the speech/transcription siblings), but the resource type makes the boundary reasonably clear.

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