doc2x_parse_pdf_submit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it creates a task (implying asynchronous processing), returns a UID for tracking, and outlines the expected workflow (monitoring with status tool, waiting only if explicitly requested). However, it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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 perfectly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and return value, the second provides critical workflow guidance. Every sentence earns its place with essential information, no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (asynchronous task creation with 1 parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well: it explains the purpose, workflow, and return value. However, it lacks details on error cases, timeouts, or what the UID represents structurally, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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 fully documents the pdf_path parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain file size limits or format requirements). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Create a Doc2x PDF parse task') and resource ('for a local file'), distinguishing it from siblings like doc2x_parse_pdf_status (monitor) and doc2x_parse_pdf_wait_text (wait). It explicitly identifies the tool's role in initiating parsing tasks.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Create a Doc2x PDF parse task') versus alternatives: 'Prefer calling doc2x_parse_pdf_status to monitor progress/result; only call doc2x_parse_pdf_wait_text if the user explicitly asks to wait/return merged text.' This clearly defines the tool's place in the workflow.

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