facturx_extract_from_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It does disclose the core behavior (extraction and return of XML), but it omits any detail about read-only nature, error behavior, or prerequisites. Since extracting is implicitly non-destructive, the description provides minimal adequate transparency, though not rich context.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the main action and states the return value. No unnecessary words or filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is almost complete. It tells the agent what to provide (PDF path) and what to expect (XML content). Minor omissions like error handling or format validity are not critical for a straightforward extraction 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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for pdfPath. The tool description adds no further meaning or examples beyond the schema's 'Chemin vers le fichier PDF Factur-X'. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 action (extract), the resource (XML embedded in a PDF), and the result (returns XML content). It distinguishes itself from siblings like facturx_parse or facturx_validate by specifying the extraction of embedded XML from a PDF specifically.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are related tools like facturx_parse or facturx_validate, but the description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or comparisons. For a tool with many siblings, this is a clear gap.

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