analyze_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs text extraction (no OCR) and returns specific data structures, which adds value. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core function, return types, and a key technical detail (no OCR). It is well front-loaded and avoids unnecessary 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?

Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a fair overview but misses prerequisites (the document must be uploaded first) and does not detail the output structure beyond listing fields. This leaves some gaps for an agent to fully understand usage.

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?

The schema has one parameter (documentId) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain that documentId refers to a previously uploaded document, nor does it specify how to obtain it. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to infer the parameter's role from the phrase 'uploaded PDF'.

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 states that the tool analyzes an uploaded PDF for field placement suggestions, specifying it uses text extraction (no OCR) and lists the return items. This gives a clear purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'upload_document' or 'preview_envelope', though the function is distinct.

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 implies usage before 'create_envelope' by mentioning the output is 'ready for create_envelope', but it lacks explicit context on when to use or not use this tool, and does not reference alternative tools for similar tasks.

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