parse_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions high-level behavior (extracting, preserving formatting) and supported formats, but fails to disclose authentication needs, rate limits, side effects (e.g., if files are modified), or the exact nature of the structured output. This is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 relatively concise with three short paragraphs. The first sentence is a clear purpose statement. The rest adds useful detail about format preservation and supported types. It is well-structured and not overly verbose, though minor repetition exists.

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 and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention capabilities like OCR, table extraction, language support, or output structure details. While it covers basic functionality, an agent would need more context for proper invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing supported file formats beyond what the schema provides, and by explaining that formatting and layout are preserved, which gives context to the output. It does not, however, elaborate on the 'output_formats' parameter beyond the schema's examples.

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 tool parses documents using Upstage AI API, extracting structure and content while preserving formatting. It mentions supported file formats, giving a good sense of the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'extract_information', so it loses a point for full clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, ideal use cases, or when to avoid it. The sibling tool 'extract_information' is listed but not contrasted, leaving the agent to infer usage context without help.

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