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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real context beyond them: the operation uses vision OCR, is company-scoped, and requires an active company as a precondition. It does not disclose failure modes or processing behavior when the PDF/company is invalid, so it is moderate rather than rich.

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 sentences with the core action front-loaded and the scoping constraint immediately after. No filler, though it is brief enough that it under-explains rather than wastes words.

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 explained, and the description covers purpose and the active-company precondition. What is missing is any guidance on the two undocumented parameters and on how the OCR variant relates to its non-OCR sibling.

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% – only companyId (a bare UUID wrapper) is described, while agentCode and sourceS3Uri carry no schema description. The description mentions company scoping but adds no meaning for agentCode or sourceS3Uri, so 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: runs vision OCR on a SAFE PDF, and adds the distinguishing scope note 'no formation required' that separates it from formation_extract_safe_terms. It does not explicitly name the non-OCR sibling, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 a precondition ('requires an active company') and a scope note ('no formation required'), which is useful context. However it never states when to choose this OCR variant over formation_extract_safe_terms or the sibling OCR tools, leaving the alternative-selection decision to inference.

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