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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool returns a link to view/download the PDF, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only or creates persistent data. The description is somewhat transparent but lacks depth on potential side effects.

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 highly concise, with no redundant words. It front-loads the purpose, then lists fields, provides a French translation, and concludes with the behavior. Every sentence serves a clear function, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 simple document-generation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value (a link to a PDF). It also differentiates from siblings by specifying the document type and relevant fields. It falls short of explaining potential error conditions or required field formats, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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 only defines a generic 'payload' object with no internal properties, so the description compensates by listing the expected fields (landlord_name, tenant_name, property_address, reason, effective_date). This adds critical meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not specify data types or formats (e.g., date format for effective_date), leaving some ambiguity.

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 generates a notice-to-quit letter (lettre de conge / preavis), specifying both landlord and tenant contexts. It lists the exact fields involved, distinguishing it from sibling tools that generate other document types (e.g., etat des lieux, avenant). The verb 'generate' plus the specific resource makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 use when a notice-to-quit is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like generate_resiliation_amiable or generate_notice_information. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations provided, so the guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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