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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing what is destroyed ('replaces their parsed data'), that credits are not consumed for already-imported documents, the 1-50 batch constraint, and the underlying POST endpoint. This meaningfully enriches the destructiveHint and idempotentHint flags rather than restating 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the operation type and intent, then the side effect and the cost/batch facts. No filler; every sentence carries new information.

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?

Covers purpose, side effect, cost, batch limits, and endpoint, which is sufficient for a 2-parameter write tool with no output schema. It could still note whether re-parsing is synchronous or returns a job/status handle, since parsing is often asynchronous, but the essential call-time information is present.

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 coverage is 100%, so parser_id and document_ids are already documented in the schema, including the min/max item bounds. The description's '1-50 document ids per call' merely repeats the schema constraints and adds no syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('run the parser again over already imported documents') and the leading 'WRITE:' label immediately separates it from read-only siblings like get_document_results. The parenthetical 'after changing parsing rules' pins down the intent further. An agent can distinguish this from upload_document and get_document_status without opening the schema.

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 clear use context: re-run parsing after changing parsing rules. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it (e.g., versus a fresh upload), so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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