Process Document

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

Discloses asynchronous processing, immediate return with job_id, and the need for polling. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent; the description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections and bullet points for args, but slightly verbose. Could be tightened without losing clarity, but still effective.

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?

Covers all necessary context: tool purpose, async flow, polling instructions, prerequisites, and supported formats. With an output schema present, lack of return description is acceptable.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains each parameter: file_url (public URL, max 50MB, formats), mask_pii (masking behavior, default true), document_type (optional hint, list of values). This compensates completely.

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 'Submit a document for processing — this is always the first step (Step 1 of 5).' It details the pipeline (download, FlexOrch classification, extraction, PII masking, quality scoring) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like job.status and job.result.

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?

Explicit guidance to use as the first step and instructs the agent to call job.status every 3-5 seconds then job.result. It also lists supported file types and constraints, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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