Table Inference

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (implying mutation) and openWorldHint=true, but the description does not clarify what happens when inference is run (e.g., does it modify page data, create a job, or return results?). No behavioral disclosure beyond the minimal purpose.

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?

Single sentence, concise, but lacks structure. Could benefit from additional context about usage or behavior while remaining brief.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not explain return values or side effects. With 5 parameters and no guidance, the description is inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with individual parameter descriptions, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 3 is appropriate; no extra value provided.

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?

Description clearly states a specific action: 'Run table structure inference on document pages.' It uses a specific verb ('run') and resource ('table structure inference' on 'document pages'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like transkribus_la_analyze which suggests general layout analysis.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as transkribus_la_analyze or transkribus_la_la2_inference. Prerequisites, required model, or typical use cases are not mentioned.

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