doc_parse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and delivers well: it discloses cost ($0.009 USDC per call), p99 latency (6000ms), the 10 MB input cap, and the exact shape of the returned metadata and Markdown. It stops short of auth/permission requirements and error behavior, keeping it out of the top band.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then formats, return shape, alternatives, params, and cost/latency in a tight sequence. Dense but every clause — format list, exclusions, one-of constraint, pricing — earns its place.

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 correctly enumerates the return fields (title, author, date, language, word count, outline, table/image counts, Markdown). Combined with formats, limits, cost, and latency, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the call.

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 only 20% (just the base64 10 MB note), so the description must compensate, and it does: it states that file_base64/url/content are mutually exclusive with one required, and gives max_chars bounds and default. The 'from' parameter is named but never explained, leaving a real gap.

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+resource ('turn a document into clean, agent-ready Markdown with metadata') and enumerates the exact formats accepted. It actively differentiates from siblings by naming pdf-extract as the PDF route and declaring PPTX/XLSX out of scope, so an agent can route correctly without opening another schema.

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?

Explicitly routes PDFs to pdf-extract and rules out PPTX/XLSX, which is precisely the when-not-to-use guidance an agent needs among a large sibling set. Usage is unambiguous for the formats it does support.

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