Scan an approval-in-principle (PDF)

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not describe what scanning does, any side effects, output format, or whether the document is stored or processed externally.

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 single-sentence description is brief and to the point, but it is under-specified. It does not include essential details about the tool's behavior or parameters, making it concise yet insufficiently informative.

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 no output schema and minimal annotations, the description leaves major gaps: the agent does not know what the scanning returns, what side effects occur, or what bank_id means. The tool is simple but these omissions prevent confident 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?

The schema describes file_path but not bank_id, and the description does not clarify what bank_id refers to. With only 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate but instead provides no parameter-level detail.

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 ('Upload') and the specific resource ('a bank approval-in-principle document'). It distinguishes from generic tools like upload_document by specifying the document type, though the term 'scanning' is somewhat vague about the intended processing.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as upload_document or balance_report_parsing is provided. The only hint is '[Premium]' which implies a licensing constraint, but no explicit use cases or exclusions are mentioned.

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