freight_parse_fuel_receipt

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 the cost of $0.05 USDC per call, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention whether the operation has side effects (likely none), how input data is handled, or error behavior. The description adds cost and input format context but misses deeper transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose followed by cost. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary detail. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 5 optional parameters, no required parameters, and no output schema. The description covers the general use case but does not explain how to choose among modes (auto, fast, llm, ocr), whether multiple input parameters can be combined, or what the resulting JSON structure looks like (beyond 'structured JSON'). Given the moderate complexity, the description is adequate but lacks operational guidance.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented (mode, text, file_path, pdf_base64, image_base64). The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating that inputs can be text, PDF, or image, which is already evident from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Parse'), resource ('fuel receipt'), acceptable formats ('text, PDF, or image'), and output ('structured JSON for IFTA / expense tracking'). This explicitly distinguishes it from sibling parse tools like freight_parse_bol_pod or freight_parse_w9.

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 this tool: when parsing fuel receipts for IFTA or expense tracking. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that the agent can infer the appropriate use case.

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