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

The description explicitly states that extraction is not persisted, which is key behavioral information not covered by the annotations (which only indicate non-destructive and closed-world). It also discloses the presence of vesting fields and instructs preservation, adding meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action, then provides crucial downstream instructions about preserving vesting fields. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 that an output schema exists, the description appropriately skips return-value details while covering the key workflow: extraction, non-persistence, and downstream passing to RecordCapTableInvestment. It lacks parameter-level detail and alternative tool references, but overall it is fairly complete for an extraction 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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate. It never names 'formationId', 'mimeType', or 'sourceS3Uri', nor explains how to specify the file. The phrase 'uploaded cap table file' vaguely implies a file parameter but gives no concrete mapping to schema fields.

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 clearly states the tool runs vision OCR on a cap table file and returns extracted rows without persisting them, using a specific verb and resource. However, the sibling tool 'formation_extract_cap_table_ocr' is nearly identical in name and likely purpose, and the description does not differentiate between them.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (when an uploaded cap table file needs parsing) and gives downstream guidance to pass vesting fields to RecordCapTableInvestment. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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