freight_parse_insurance_cert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the cost per call ($0.08 USDC) and the input types, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, error handling, limitations, or what happens with invalid inputs. Parsing is inherently safe, but the description lacks deeper behavioral context beyond cost and input 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?

The description is a single sentence that packs purpose, accepted inputs, output format, and cost into a concise, front-loaded statement. No wasted words; the cost detail is additional but relevant for decision-making. Excellent 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 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, yet the description only provides a high-level overview and cost. It does not describe the structure of the returned JSON, the semantics of the 'mode' parameter, or how to handle conflicting inputs. Given the complexity of a document parser, this leaves meaningful gaps for an agent to use it correctly beyond a basic call.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance (e.g., how to choose between 'fast', 'llm', and 'ocr' modes, or which input parameter to prefer). It merely repeats the input type categories, so it does not compensate beyond the schema baseline.

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 action ('Parse'), the specific resource ('ACORD 25 Certificate of Insurance'), the accepted input formats ('text, PDF, or image'), and the output ('structured JSON'). This specific verb-and-resource phrasing distinguishes it from sibling parse tools that handle other document types (e.g., BOL/POD, fuel receipt, 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 implies usage for parsing insurance certificates because the name and resource are explicit, but it does not state when to use this tool instead of a sibling or provide explicit exclusions/alternatives. No guidance on when to prefer this over other parse tools, though the resource specificity makes the use case reasonably clear.

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