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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention '0.1 USDC on Base, pay-per-use', a useful cost trait, but it does not state whether the call is read-only, what the response shape is, error behavior, or what happens if 'campos' is omitted.

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 compact sentence with the core operation front-loaded and cost/input details appended. Every token earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description states the output is structured JSON and the input is text, which is minimally sufficient. But it leaves 'campos' undefined and does not clarify how the agent should provide fields or what the returned JSON will contain.

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 only defines 'input' with the generic description 'service input'. The description adds 'input=text' and 'campos=optional', but 'campos' has no corresponding schema property, which is confusing and could lead the agent to pass an unsupported parameter. This reduces the semantic value beyond the already limited 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 names a specific operation ('extract structured JSON') on a specific resource ('document') and states the output format. It does not differentiate from the closely named sibling 'extract-json', which prevents a perfect score for tool-selection clarity.

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?

It gives input-level details ('input=text', 'campos=optional') but no conditions for when to use this tool over alternatives like extract-json, ocr, or smart-document. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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