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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; description builds on this by disclosing the local vs hosted two-phase upload flow, pdfOptions.maxPages bounding, redactPII behavior, and the zeroDataRetention account requirement. No contradictions.

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 main purpose, then compactly covers the most important usage variations and options in four sentences. No repetition of schema or annotation data.

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?

For a complex 19-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers core behavior, return value, local/hosted workflows, and exclusions. It does not mention several secondary options (e.g., includeTags/excludeTags, onlyMainContent, proxy, maxAge), but those are not central to selecting the 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?

The description compensates for 0% schema coverage by explaining the local/hosted filePath/uploadRef relationship, pdfOptions.maxPages, redactPII, zeroDataRetention eligibility, and the output types (markdown/html/links/summary/query/json). It leaves some self-explanatory options (proxy, maxAge, tags) unprompted, but the semantically opaque parameters are mostly clarified.

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 opens with a specific verb-object statement: 'Parse one supported document into markdown, HTML, links, summary, targeted answers, or JSON matching a schema.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating 'Remote web URLs belong in firecrawl_scrape.'

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 explicitly says when to use the tool (supported local documents) and what not to use it for ('Remote web URLs belong in firecrawl_scrape'). It further gives usage flow for local vs hosted MCP, including the two-call upload instruction and the rule 'do not send both fields together.'

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