parse_document

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions optional waiting and that the initial result is a compact summary, but does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or details about the submission process.

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 sentences with no fluff, front-loading the core purpose. Could be slightly more structured by grouping parameter details, but overall efficient.

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 14 parameters and an output schema, the description omits details on most parameters. It provides good guidance on pagination alternatives but lacks parameter semantics, making it incomplete.

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%, and the description only explains the mutual exclusivity of file_path, file_url, and base64_content, plus wait. It fails to describe 11 other parameters like backend, parse_method, table_enable, etc.

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 submits a document to OcrPlane OCR, specifies required input (file_path, file_url, or base64_content), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_markdown and get_content_blocks.

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 advises preferring file_url for large files and directs users to get_markdown or get_content_blocks for large results, providing clear context and alternatives. No explicit when-not-to-use, but sufficient guidance.

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