alefba_detail_document

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

The description discloses a behavioral trait: 'May start processing any remaining pages of the document.' It also mentions the HTTP method (POST) and return structure. However, since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden; it does not cover authentication needs, rate limits, or potential errors.

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 in English plus a Persian translation and additional notes. It front-loads the main purpose but includes redundancy (Persian translation) and could be more concise. The structure is acceptable but not optimal.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no enums, no nested objects), the description covers the core functionality and return fields. However, it lacks explanation of error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., document must exist), and details about the processing side effect. With an output schema present, the return value listing is adequate.

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%, so the description must explain both parameters. It only explains the optional 'instance' parameter ('Optional name... Omit to use the default instance'). The required 'document_url' parameter is not described beyond being the document identifier; its format or constraints are omitted.

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 'Fetch full detail for a document' and enumerates the returned fields (thumbnails, page URLs, pages, type). This is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'alefba_read_document' or 'alefba_document_pages', which may have overlapping functionality.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to other document-related tools in the sibling list.

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