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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that the call consumes Doxis AI.dp credits (per request/page, with configuration-dependent extra cost), the project's price and free-credit amount, the privacy warning that the result contains personal data, and the fact that the server never stores or logs the result. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs for a paid, open-world capture operation.

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?

Front-loads the critical cost warning ('SPENDS CREDITS') and then proceeds purpose → privacy → billing → input → limits → endpoint in a compact narrative with no filler. Every sentence carries actionable content for invocation or cost/privacy decisions.

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 an 8-parameter tool with full schema coverage, no output schema and annotations, the description is complete: it covers purpose, valid input forms, the cost model, privacy handling and the extracted fields that will be returned. No essential invocation detail is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds a mutually exclusive input constraint ('exactly one of url, data_base64 or file_id') and an image size limit ('up to 4096 px per side') that the schema does not state. It otherwise relies on the schema for parameter details.

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 ('read') and resource ('identity document') and enumerates accepted document types (passport, ID card, driver's licence, visa) plus the Identity model's extracted fields. This distinguishes it from sibling capture tools that target other document classes.

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 clear usage context: for identity documents, exactly one of url/data_base64/file_id must be supplied, with size and page limits and an optional configuration_slug linked to dochorizon_list_configurations. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative (e.g. dochorizon_capture_generic) for non-identity documents, so routing is implied by document types rather than stated.

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