process_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context: typical processing time (0-3 minutes, 2 sec/page), file size limit (100MB), and that a unique doc_id is returned for subsequent operations. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, error handling, or if there are any destructive side effects. The provided temporal and size details provide some transparency, but not exhaustive behavioral 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?

The description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and capabilities. It covers essential operational details (time, size limit, return value) without redundancy or filler. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key operational concerns: what the tool does, how long it takes, size limits, and the returned doc_id. It is adequate for an agent to call it correctly. However, it could be more complete by mentioning whether processing is async or if there are any error conditions, but these are minor gaps given the simplicity of the 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (url and folder_id), and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format constraints, default behaviors, or examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool uploads and processes PDF documents, with specific capabilities like OCR and extraction. It uses a specific verb ('upload and process') and resource ('PDF documents'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_document or search_documents. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative when another tool should be used, so it falls short of a 5.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, not when it is appropriate or inappropriate, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The purpose is implied (use this to start processing), but there is no direct 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance relative to the sibling tools.

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