Read an Odoo attachment (vision)

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

Annotations already mark the call as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: credit pricing per 20 pages with a 30-page max, one-time charging per document, async status queries, and the notable warning that returned content is document data, not instructions. This goes well beyond the annotation hints.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: formats, analysis output, targeting modes, action variants, pricing, limits, and a security warning. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then branches into modes without repeating schema facts.

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 complex 9-parameter tool with no schema coverage, the description covers all primary invocation strategies, action semantics, async handling, and cost constraints. The output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description does not need to restate return values; the only small omission is the optional field parameter, which does not undermine completeness.

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 carries the burden. It clearly explains attachment_id, document_id, model+res_id, filename, action, question, and job_id, adding meaning such as the 'free when already read' condition. The field parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of nine parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('Odoo attachment'), supported formats (PDF/image/scan/Word), and what the agent gets (transcription + structured analysis). The vision-model qualifier in the title and the three-action behavior make it clearly distinguishable from generic siblings.

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?

Gives explicit guidance on when to use extract vs ask vs status, including the free-after-read condition and the async situation for long documents. It also explains which target parameter combination to use (attachment_id, document_id, or model+res_id), though it does not explicitly contrast the tool with aidoo_read or other sibling tools.

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