AI-Process Shipping Label

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses key behavioral aspects: the API call is asynchronous (isAsync: true, 202 + Location poll), it saves output to process_shipping_label.json, and it explains docName resolution logic. It does not mention auth or error handling, but it provides substantial behavioral context beyond what structured fields offer.

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 dense paragraph that efficiently packs the endpoint, request body, parameter rules, and asynchronous behavior. While it could benefit from bullet points for readability, every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover the essentials. It does: purpose, API endpoint, parameter semantics, async flow, and output file location. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it does not describe the content of the resulting JSON, which is acceptable given the absence of an output schema.

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 no descriptions for its 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains doc_name resolution (uses doc_name if set, else file basename), profiles formatting (trim, omit if empty, wrap in outer braces), and pdf_file_path extensions. output_dir is not explicitly addressed, but its purpose is inferable from the output file mention.

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/ProcessShippingLabel' from a shipping label. It uses a specific verb and noun, and distinguishes itself from sibling process_* tools by explicitly naming the document type.

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 when to use this tool (for shipping label extraction) and provides concrete usage constraints such as requiring a local pdf_file_path with specific extensions (.pdf/.png/.jpg/.jpeg). It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is unambiguous as this is the only shipping-label-specific extraction tool among the siblings.

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