Submit a large PDF invoice for async analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the asynchronous nature and the job_id return, which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It omits size limits, retention/failure behavior, or auth requirements, so it is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the key constraint (too large for sync) and the return/polling contract front-loaded. Every clause 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return value (job_id) and the polling tool, which is the essential missing piece. It stops short of documenting practical limits or failure handling, so a small gap remains.

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 both pdfBase64 and withLineItems are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, encoding, or size guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (submit) and resource (large scanned/PDF invoice) with the operational mode (asynchronous analysis), and explicitly positions it against the sibling analyze_pdf_invoice by scoping to files too large for the synchronous path. An agent can route between the sync and async analyzers without opening the schema.

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 parenthetical 'for files too large for the synchronous analyzer' gives the exact selection condition versus the sibling tool, and the description names the follow-up tool (analyze_pdf_invoice_async_status) with the job_id needed to call it. This is explicit when-to-use plus the required next step.

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