OCR uploads and quota

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral context: results are ordered newest first, single-document retrieval returns recognised lines, and the remaining OCR quota is included. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two compact sentences cover the main listing behavior, the single-document mode with its required parameters, and the quota reporting. Information is front-loaded and nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately names key return concepts: recognition status, document lines, and OCR quota. Given the schema's coverage of parameters and the read-only annotation, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to know what this tool returns and when to call it.

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 coverage is high at 83%, so the schema documents most parameters such as limit, since, id, and include_quota. The description reinforces the id/document_type pairing and the quota flag but does not add meaning for status or limit beyond the schema, keeping it at the baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List documents sent to OCR'), states the sorting ('newest first'), and defines the second mode ('get one recognised document with its lines'). It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does and is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, none of which cover OCR.

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 gives a clear conditional: use the listing mode by default, or provide 'document_type and id' to fetch a single recognised document with lines. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling context shows no overlapping OCR tool, and the two-mode instruction is enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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