parse_document

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing credential/billing requirements per mode, size and timeout limits, that uploads still occur in free_sync, that duplicate calls reuse failed/uncertain tasks, that redacted-copy changes are rejected, and that quotas are provider-controlled. The idempotent hint is reinforced and explained rather than merely repeated.

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?

Nearly every clause carries real operational information, but it is delivered as one dense semicolon-chained block rather than front-loaded, scannable structure, making the mode contracts and constraints harder to extract than they need to be.

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?

Covers credentials, billing, size/timeouts, retry/idempotency semantics, redaction preconditions, and where outputs are read (read_document/read_element/read_evidence); with an output schema present it need not describe return values. The only gap is the meaning of document_id itself.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, and it defines the mode enum exhaustively (paid_async/free_sync/vlm_sync semantics) and the max_paid_pages 1–20 ceiling. document_id is only indirectly explained (use the redacted copy's new ID), leaving one of three params under-specified.

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 opening states a concrete verb+resource ('上传指定材料到TextIn') and the body names the mode-specific behaviors that constitute parsing, plus it explicitly routes to sibling tools (redact_document, read_document, read_element, read_evidence). It never plainly says 'parse the document and produce structured output,' so the core action is implicit rather than stated, but an agent can still distinguish it from siblings.

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 explicit when/when-not guidance: use paid_async (default, billed), free_sync for credential-free small inputs, vlm_sync only for already-imported single PNG/JPG; modes never auto-switch; repeated calls must reuse the same mode and must not be used to bypass retry protection; and it prescribes the redact-first flow when personal data is present. Alternatives are named rather than left to inference.

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