Parse Document

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. Description adds meaningful context: costs $0.01 USDC, requires public URL (not private/auth-needed pages), auto-detects doc type. However, it doesn't disclose pagination, size limits, rate limits, or failure modes (e.g., what happens with unsupported formats). Since annotations carry the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 main description is a tight two-sentence summary with zero waste. The cost info and input types are efficiently packed. The _payment parameter description is longer but earns its length by explaining the signing flow and security guarantee (private key never leaves machine). Slightly verbose in the payment param, but justifiably so.

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?

With an output schema present, return format need not be described. The four parameters are fully documented. The description covers input restrictions (public URL), cost, auto-detection, and the payment flow. Gaps: doesn't mention size limits, supported doc complexity, or error handling for unparseable content, but for a single-required-param tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, this is quite complete.

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 100%, so the schema documents all four parameters. The description adds value by noting 'Auto-detects doc type' which clarifies the output_schema=auto default behavior, and the payment parameter description in the schema provides rich signing guidance. The description itself doesn't add param detail beyond the 100% coverage, but the baseline 3 plus the auto-detection clarification around output_schema justifies a 4.

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?

Description states specific verb+resource: 'Parse any public HTML page or PDF URL into clean structured JSON.' It names the input types (HTML/PDF URLs), the output format (structured JSON), and auto-detection of doc type. Clear differentiation from siblings like image.ocr (image OCR) and document.render_pdf (PDF creation).

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?

Description specifies the input requirement ('public' URL), which implies the access constraint. It notes cost and payment (USDC on Base), giving context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. document.render_pdf or image.ocr, though the purpose clarity makes the distinction fairly obvious. The _payment parameter documentation covers the auth flow well.

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