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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context about the E2B sandbox usage, the conversion pipeline (Cohere Parse to markdown), and the review by Command A+. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the internal process, though it doesn't detail side effects or return format.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Use an E2B sandbox to process tender attachments') and then elaborates on the processing steps. There is no wasted wording, and the key information is immediately clear.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema. The description is brief and does not explain what the tool returns or what the output looks like. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify the result of processing (e.g., the markdown or review output), but it only says 'reviews the evidence' without specifying the deliverable. This leaves a gap for an agent deciding whether the tool meets its needs.

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 100%, meaning all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides—it merely mentions processing attachments, which is implied by the tool name and schema fields like max_attachments. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: it processes tender attachments using Cohere Parse to convert PDF/image files to markdown and then Command A+ reviews the evidence. This is a specific verb+resource with a detailed pipeline, distinguishing it from siblings like analyze_contract_with_cohere which focus on analysis rather than processing attachments.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools. While the purpose is clear, the agent is left to infer when this processing tool is appropriate, which is a significant gap.

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