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

The description provides critical operational behavior beyond annotations, detailing specific error outcomes like 'standard_document_rejected' for invalid bytes or older formats. It also includes non-functional information such as 'not metered.'

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 dense and highly efficient. It front-loads the primary function while dedicating the remainder of the text to necessary caveats and comparative guidance without being verbose.

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?

With 100% parameter coverage and robust annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description provides all necessary operational context, including failure modes and tool comparison, resulting in a complete definition.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds valuable functional context by explaining that the 'workspace_tag' scopes authorization and that the 'handle' is a server-side transfer name. This provides meaning beyond simple data types.

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 is highly specific, naming the types of documents handled (Statement, Chart, Declaration, Books) and clearly stating the function: authenticates, verifies content identity, and re-derives form laws.

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 explicitly differentiates itself from a sibling tool by contrasting the return value (bounded routing facts vs. canonical body) of 'open_standard_document,' making the usage context exceptionally clear.

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