LA2 Inference

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations. It does not mention whether the tool consumes credits, modifies the document, or creates a job. For a mutation-like tool with side effects (openWorldHint=true), more transparency is needed.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence, which is efficient. However, it could be front-loaded with more context. It is not verbose, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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?

Given the complexity (13 parameters, many optional) and absence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, how long it takes, or whether it is synchronous or asynchronous. A user would have to guess the behavior from the parameter names 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 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 is specific: 'Run LA2 model inference on document pages.' It clearly identifies the action (run inference), the model (LA2), and the target (document pages). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like transkribus_la_analyze or transkribus_la_table_inference.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, expected input context, or cases where another tool would be more appropriate. Siblings like transkribus_la_analyze or transkribus_la_get_costs are not differentiated.

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