doc_parse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses network fetching, file creation, return contents, and the dry_run behavior that avoids network requests. It does not mention failure handling or permission requirements, but the primary side effects are transparent.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action, then states the return value, and ends with the dry_run modifier. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the main flow, success outputs, and the special dry-run mode. Minor edge cases like unreachable URLs or existing-file behavior are omitted, but they are not essential for a correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains dry_run ('With dry_run=true, reports what would be fetched without making any network requests') and implies that key identifies the saved receipt, but it never explicitly defines the required key parameter or its expected format.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Parse a saved receipt: fetch all its URLs, extract the content, and write a timestamped .md file into the output directory.' This makes the tool's core operation clear and distinguishes it from siblings like doc_parse_url or receipt_show.

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 clearly frames the tool as being for saved receipts, which gives an agent a clear context for when it is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops short of full 5-level guidance.

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