alefba_read_document_upload

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

Discloses multipart upload, return format variation with wait parameter, and instance targeting. No annotations provided, so description compensates well. Could mention potential side effects or delays, but overall transparent.

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?

Very concise: four sentences covering action, technical detail, return behavior, and optional parameter. Front-loaded with core purpose. Farsi translation is possibly redundant but not detrimental.

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 output schema exists, description explains return alternatives. Lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools and constraints like file size/types. But for a typical OCR tool, reasonably complete.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description adds meaning for file_path (implied), wait (return format), and instance (target). For other parameters (type, fix_orientation, word_positions, priority), it only references sibling tool without details, which is insufficient.

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?

Clearly states it uploads a local file for OCR reading. Distinguishes from sibling alefba_read_document by specifying local file upload and multipart form data. The bilingual text adds no confusion.

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?

Implicitly indicates use for local files vs. other methods (alefba_read_document likely for URLs). Mentions same options as sibling, hinting at alternative. No explicit exclusions, but context is clear.

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