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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only declare destructive/non-idempotent/open-world). It discloses the 2,000,000 character ceiling, that text must be plain UTF-8 with no base64, the exact guardrail set shared with ficiel_send_media (verified named recipient, blacklist, protected steps, caps, channel pause), the recipient_mismatch refusal path, and that Markdown images are not embedded in the PDF.

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?

A single dense paragraph with the purpose front-loaded and no filler sentences; nearly every clause adds operational detail. It is long by necessity given four formats and two guardrail domains, though a bulleted structure for the format behaviors would have been easier to scan.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description anticipates the key failure mode (recipient_mismatch, nothing sent) and the irreversibility. It stops short of describing the success response or the exact cap values alluded to by 'plafonds', leaving minor gaps for an 8-parameter mutation tool.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: format=pdf paginates Markdown structure while the other formats send text verbatim, and titre serves double duty as file name and PDF header when the text does not begin with an H1. Limits (2M chars, no base64) reinforce the contenu constraint.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (send a document built from its text into an existing conversation), then spells out the four output formats and what the server does with each. It also implicitly separates itself from ficiel_send_media by noting the shared guardrails and by describing server-side file generation from text rather than media upload.

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?

Gives prerequisites clearly: an existing conversation (1:1 or group via conversation_id), write scope required, and channel+lead_id or conversation_id. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over ficiel_send_message or ficiel_send_media; the distinction is left to inference from the file-generation semantics.

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