read_swiss_qr_bill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is a read (implying non-destructive), mentions the PDF4me API (suggesting external processing), and discloses the output format as structured JSON. This gives sufficient behavioral transparency for a simple read tool, though it omits details like file permissions or error handling.

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?

Two sentences, with purpose stated first and parameter + output in the second. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 is simple (1 required parameter, no output schema, no annotations). The description covers the purpose, the required input, and the return format, making it complete for the agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The schema already fully describes file_path as 'Local path to the PDF file' (100% coverage). The description merely repeats this instruction without adding extra constraints, formats, or examples, so it adds no value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies the exact resource ('Swiss QR bill data from a local PDF'), also naming the underlying API. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_swiss_qr_bill or split_pdf_by_swiss_qr.

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 makes the primary use case obvious: extracting Swiss QR bill data from a PDF. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives, which keeps it just below an explicit 'when/when-not' guidance.

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