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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool returns structured data and works on publicly accessible URLs, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it mention potential rate limits or authentication requirements beyond the free tier.

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 a single paragraph that efficiently front-loads the main purpose, then lists outputs, use cases, and limits. No extraneous information; every sentence adds value.

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, the description covers input options, output fields, use cases, and limits. While it lacks an output schema, the listed fields provide adequate context. No mention of error handling or accessibility issues, but the description is reasonably complete for an agent.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that url and text are alternative inputs and that email enables unlimited analyses, which clarifies usage beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 extracts structured intelligence from documents, listing document types and return fields. It uses specific verbs and resources. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like pdf_extract or contract_scan, which have overlapping capabilities.

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 explicit use cases (e.g., 'summarize this PDF') and mentions free tier limits, but it lacks guidance on when not to use this tool versus more specialized siblings, such as contract_scan for contracts or ghost_audit_report for security audits.

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