retry_parse_document

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses duplicate-billing risk, the one-request-per-expected_attempt idempotency guard, that old attempts are preserved, how to treat missing attempt_number as 1, and that user_note is a host-agent relay rather than authenticated identity. These are material behavioral facts not derivable from the schema.

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?

Front-loads the consent precondition, then procedurally layers prerequisites, prohibitions, and edge cases. Dense but essentially waste-free; slightly packed for a single paragraph.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the risky-operation context well. The main remaining gap is semantics for the two cost/acknowledgement parameters, which matters because the tool can incur charges.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains expected_attempt (derive via get_job, default 1) and user_note (relayed, not independent auth), but leaves job_id, max_paid_pages, and acknowledge_resubmission to be inferred from their bare names.

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+resource (重提/retry a parse document) and narrows scope to failed/submission_unknown tasks, which distinguishes it from parse_document and get_job. An agent can identify this as the escalation path for stuck jobs 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('仅在用户明确同意重新上传/可能重复计费后'), when-not ('禁止自动重试或切换模式'), a required prerequisite ('先get_job取得attempt_number'), and routing for blockers ('凭据/额度问题应先处理；40306先联系服务商'). This is a complete decision procedure.

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