upload_pathology_scan

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the upload triggers AI OCR and biomarker extraction and returns an uploadId; however, it does not mention whether processing is asynchronous, whether the file is stored, any size limits, or demo vs. real behavior. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then states the purpose and return value. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant text.

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 simple two-parameter upload tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is uploaded, why, and what is returned. It could mention the demo flag's effect or next steps like polling status, but the schema covers the parameter and the sibling get_upload_status implies the workflow.

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 schema already documents filePath and isDemo. The description adds file type specificity (JPG, PNG) beyond 'image/PDF', which is useful, but it does not otherwise explain parameter behavior. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 names the specific verb 'upload', the resource ('pathology/blood test image or PDF'), and the purpose ('AI OCR and biomarker extraction'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling 'upload_medical_device' by file type and intended use.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you have a pathology/blood test image or PDF to process. It does not explicitly mention avoiding it for non-pathology uploads, but the resource specificity makes the appropriate use case unambiguous.

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