Is Docling document in cache

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the local-cache/convertion context but does not disclose return details or failure behavior; with an output schema present, that gap is acceptable but still minimal beyond annotations.

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 one clear sentence with no filler, and the core predicate and resource are front-loaded. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 simple single-parameter, read-only predicate with a documented input schema and an output schema, the description is sufficient. No return value explanation is needed because the output schema exists, and the tool's narrow scope is fully represented.

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 single parameter document_key is fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning about the parameter, so the schema carries the burden and the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Verify if') and resource ('Docling document ... in local cache'), clearly identifying this as a cache-lookup predicate. This distinguishes it from the conversion, saving, and modification sibling tools without needing to inspect them.

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 phrase 'already converted' implies this tool is useful for checking before doing conversion work, but the description never explicitly says when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tool is named or compared.

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