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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the non-mutating claim largely restates structured data. However, the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: statelessness and a <25ms latency expectation, which help an agent decide to call it inline rather than batch.

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?

Two sentences with the core capability front-loaded and a single compact example; nothing is padded. The example is somewhat redundant given a 100%-documented schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema and rich annotations remove the need to describe return values or safety, and the schema fully documents parameters. But for a 37-parameter, 57-archetype tool, the description says nothing about mode interactions or the preview-then-generate workflow, leaving the agent to infer routing from sibling names alone.

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 description coverage is 100% across all 37 parameters, so the schema carries the semantic load. The inline example pins down the shape of from/to/doc_type, adding marginal value, but there is no explanation of the interactions between parameters (e.g., payment_link with payment_qr_code, or state_code with notary_required).

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 uses a specific verb-plus-resource ('synthesize a vector PDF document') and enumerates concrete archetypes (invoice, receipt, contract, NDA, lease), so an agent knows exactly what is produced. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like preview_document or convert_document, which also deal with documents, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'statelessly ... without mutating server records' implies a generation-only, safe-to-call context, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It never tells the agent why to pick this over preview_document (dry run?) or convert_document, which is the most likely routing confusion.

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