extract_resume_v1_documents_resume_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns structured JSON and explicitly notes a cost of 10 credits, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (likely non-destructive), error handling, or any limitations (e.g., file size, format requirements beyond PDF). The cost disclosure adds value, but overall the behavioral coverage is sparse.

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 two short sentences with no fluff: 'Process a PDF resume and return structured JSON. Cost: 10 credits.' The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the cost note is a valuable addition. Every word earns its place, and the structure is optimal for quick agent parsing.

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?

For a tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not specify the structure of the returned JSON (e.g., which resume fields are extracted) or clarify whether at least one parameter is required. The absence of output schema puts the burden on the description to convey what the agent can expect, but it only says 'structured JSON' without detail. This is a moderate gap; the tool is simple but the description leaves some ambiguity about input requirements and output format.

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%: both parameters are described as 'URL to the PDF file' and 'Base64 encoded PDF string'. The description itself adds no additional semantic detail about the parameters, so it relies entirely on the schema. Per the rule, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance or clarify parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific action ('Process a PDF resume') and the expected output ('return structured JSON'). The resource is clearly identified as a resume PDF, which aligns with the tool name and distinguishes it from extraction tools for other document types like 'extract_invoice_v1_documents_invoice_post'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling extraction tools in the description itself, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only states what the tool does ('Process a PDF resume') without any guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions or exclusions, nor any comparison to sibling extraction tools. The usage context is implied by the name and the resource type, but the description provides no explicit direction for an agent to select this tool over others.

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