recognize_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description transparently discloses the asynchronous recognition process (recognizeTextAsync + getRecognition polling) and language limitations (no auto-detect). This is adequate disclosure for a non-destructive read operation, though rate limits or size constraints are not mentioned.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and immediately following with usage guidance. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy.

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 (6 parameters, async polling, no output schema), the description covers the key behavioral aspects and parameter choices. It explains the async workflow and language limitations, but could have elaborated on the polling mechanism or return value format. Still, it is largely complete for an AI agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by summarizing model purposes (e.g., 'page-column-sort' for multi-column text) and the choice between path and base64, but these details are already present in the schema. No significant new information is provided.

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 explicitly states it recognizes text in a PDF document using Yandex Vision OCR, with details on async processing. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'recognize_text' tool, which likely handles non-PDF formats.

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 indicates use for PDFs and large files, providing context on when to apply it. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it or contrast with alternatives, the guidance is clear and sufficient for the intended use case.

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