AI-Process Marriage Certificate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It reveals that the operation is asynchronous (IsAsync true, 202 + Location poll), that VerifyAuthenticity and CustomFieldKeys are conditionally included, that the output is saved to process_marriage_certificate.json, and that names without extensions get .pdf. This goes well beyond the schema and provides essential behavioral context.

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 focused paragraph. Each sentence adds distinct information: the API endpoint, base body, conditional fields, file input requirements, and the output behavior. There is no wasted wording, and the most important purpose is front-loaded.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and any schema property descriptions, the description is quite complete. It covers the input requirements, conditional parameters, async polling, and output file. The only notable omission is the output_dir parameter, which is not explained. But for a tool with this complexity, the description provides enough operational detail for an agent to use it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains pdf_file_path (local file types), doc_name (optional, basename, extension default), verify_authenticity (only sent when true), and custom_field_keys (only when non-empty, PascalCase). However, output_dir is not mentioned at all, leaving a gap for one of the five parameters. Overall, it adds meaningful semantics to most parameters.

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 the tool's function: 'extract structured data via PDF4me POST /api/v2/ProcessMarriageCertificate.' It identifies the specific resource (marriage certificate) and the action (process/extract), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like process_invoice or process_bank_cheque. The tool name and description align perfectly.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: it requires a local pdf_file_path, explains that doc_name is optional and defaults to .pdf, and describes the async flow (202 + Location poll). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the specialized name implies its use case.

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