Extract Supplier Invoice PDF

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful security note that raw_text is untrusted external text and must be treated as data only, which goes beyond what the annotations convey.

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 tightly written sentences: the capability and formats are front-loaded, with the safety caveat second. No wasted words.

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 usefully says what comes back (OCR text and key identifiers) and flags the untrusted nature of the text. This is nearly complete for a single-parameter read-only extraction tool; only the relationship to booking/invoice-creation siblings is unaddressed.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents file_path. The description merely echoes the accepted formats, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (extract) and resource (invoice OCR text and key identifiers) with the accepted file formats. It does not reference the closely related sibling create_purchase_invoice_from_pdf, so an agent must infer the boundary itself, which keeps this from a 5.

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?

It implies usage by naming the input types and adds a caution to validate totals before booking, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus create_purchase_invoice_from_pdf or validate_invoice_data. Context is implied rather than stated.

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