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

Annotations only declare the generic mutation profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description adds substantial behavior beyond them: that it spends credits, how billing works, that outputs are stored in Doxis AI.dp storage and returned as reusable file ids, and the POST endpoint.

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?

Well front-loaded with the 'SPENDS CREDITS' warning and the core behavior first. However, some billing detail ('extra components... can add cost', 'EUR 25 of free credit') leans promotional and could be trimmed without losing call-relevant meaning.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by explaining outputs are stored and returned as file ids. Inputs, exclusivity, cost, output handling, and endpoint are all covered.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuine constraint not in the schema: the three input-source parameters are mutually exclusive ('exactly one of'). It also reinforces that file_id values are portable across tools.

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 (split) and resource (PDF) plus the mechanism (by page ranges), with a concrete example ['1-3','4-6']. This clearly separates it from the obvious sibling dochorizon_document_merge and other document tools.

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 context on how to supply input ('exactly one of url, data_base64 or file_id') and on how outputs feed into other tools. It does not state explicit when-to-use/when-not versus alternatives, but the operation's purpose makes alternatives self-evident.

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