alefba_read_document_callback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the immediate return of {state:'processing', document_url} and the async callback mechanism. However, it does not explain error handling, retry behavior, or authorization needs, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 long, including a Persian translation, and front-loads the key purpose. It is concise without being terse, though the bilingual text adds some length. Every sentence adds value.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (though not shown), the description explains the basic workflow and response shape. It does not cover failure scenarios, callback guarantees, or integration with sibling tools like alefba_read_document. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning for all three parameters: document_url (the document to read), callback_url (where to POST result), and instance (target instance, defaults to default). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 reads a document and returns results via webhook callback, distinguishing it from synchronous polling tools like alefba_read_document. The Persian translation reinforces the purpose.

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 explicitly positions this tool as an alternative to polling, stating that Alefba will POST the result to callback_url. It mentions the optional instance parameter, providing clear context for when to use this tool.

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