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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds valuable behavioral context: cost ($0.02 per call via x402), handling of scanned PDFs requiring OCR, and the type of output (Markdown per page with metadata for PDF, real Markdown for DOCX, typed columns and rows for CSV). No contradiction with annotations.

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 coherent paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then details per format, and ends with usage hint and cost. Every sentence adds value, no 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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers all necessary context: input formats, output structure, error flags (scanned PDFs), cost, and usage scenario. It is fully complete for an agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds meaning beyond schema by specifying default and max for max_rows (1000/5000), and clarifying auto-detect logic for type. This extra detail aids usage, raising it above baseline 3.

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 extracts documents and returns Markdown plus structured JSON, with specific formats (PDF, DOCX, CSV) and mention of OCR for scanned PDFs. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_scrape by focusing on document contents rather than bytes.

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 includes 'For agents that need document contents, not bytes' which gives context on when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives (e.g., post_extract_custom) to guide when not to use it.

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