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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it stores the document/result, consumes credits at one per up-to-five pages, requires user agreement for credit use, explains request_key retry semantics, and advises reviewing confidence and validation errors. This complements the annotation hints (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) without contradicting them.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers operational guidance in six compact sentences. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct behavioral or usage information without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity, annotations, and the existence of an output schema, the description covers critical operational details: credit consumption, retry behavior, user consent, and result validation. It is incomplete in one area: it does not explain how to obtain a schema_slug (e.g., via the dokyumi_list_schemas 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It gives meaning to use_existing_credits (requires user agreement, must be true), request_key (reuse for retries), and schema_slug (saved Dokyumi schema), and references file as an authorized attached PDF or image. However, it does not explain the nested file object's required fields (download_url, file_id), leaving a significant gap for a complex required parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('authorized attached PDF or image') with the mechanism ('using a saved Dokyumi schema'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like dokyumi_get_extraction or dokyumi_list_schemas.

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?

It provides clear context for use: obtain user agreement before setting use_existing_credits=true, reuse request_key for retries, and avoid automatic new extractions after a timeout. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when to use this versus siblings such as dokyumi_list_schemas to obtain a schema_slug.

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