Document parse

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

Annotations already carry the readOnly/destructive/idempotent profile, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: it costs wallet credits and produces validated output. This is a meaningful disclosure, and it does not contradict any annotation.

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 short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The scope is front-loaded, and the wallet-cost warning is a necessary behavioral note that 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?

The description is minimally viable: it names inputs, output, and cost. However, with five optional parameters and no output schema, it omits how to choose among input sources and what the resolved JSON contains, leaving an agent to infer call structure from the schema alone.

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 100%, so the parameter meanings are already fully documented. The description's mention of document types and file formats adds breadth but no parameter-level guidance such as exactly one of text, fileUrl, or fileBase64 being required.

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 specifies the resource (invoice, receipt, EOB, ERA, COI, PDF/image) and the outcome (structured, validated JSON), so an agent can tell what the tool does. However, the verb is implicit rather than explicit, and it does not distinguish itself from specialist siblings like parserail_invoice or parserail_receipt.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With dozens of sibling tools, the agent receives no help deciding between this generic parser and specialized alternatives, nor is there any instruction about which input mode to prefer.

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