DocuGrip

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it returns the issuing agency source, the current edition, the date older editions are rejected, and a fill-and-sign page. It does not mention coverage gaps or ambiguity handling, keeping it short of a 5.

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 content is front-loaded: capability and coverage come first, the when-to-use cue comes last. The example list is long but functional, showing the accepted code/name space. Slightly heavy for a one-parameter lookup, hence not 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so (source, current edition, rejection date, fill/sign page). Combined with the covered parameter and readOnly annotation, an agent has what it needs to invoke correctly; only edge cases like ambiguous or non-existent forms are unaddressed.

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% and there is a single documented parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the parameter by giving many example values (W-9, W-4, 1099-NEC, I-130, I-765, N-400, "green card application"), which signals that names as well as codes are accepted, but it adds no syntax or format rules beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Find an official form") and immediately bounds the scope with concrete coverage (US IRS/USCIS, Canada, UK) and example form codes (W-9, I-130, N-400). An agent can distinguish this from the unrelated PDF-tool siblings without opening any schema.

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 gives an explicit trigger: "Use this when a user asks where to get, fill in or sign a form." That is a clear usage context. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are not plausible substitutes, so little is left to inference.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds genuinely new context by disclosing the return shape: matching tools plus the URL to open. With no output schema, that disclosure is the only signal about results. It does not mention ranking, result limits, or empty-result behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

One sentence with the action and matching rule front-loaded, followed by examples that each illustrate a distinct query type. No filler, no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input style, examples, and return content. Minor gaps remain around result count limits and whether results are ranked, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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% for the single 'query' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by specifying the input should be 'in the user's own words' and backing that with example phrasings, which directly guides how an agent should compose the query string.

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 ('Find the DocuGrip tools that match a task') and clarifies the matching semantics are natural-language task descriptions, which implicitly separates it from list_pdf_tools and get_pdf_tool. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 three concrete example queries ('combine two contracts', 'my scan has no searchable text', 'shrink this under 2 MB') give clear context for when this tool is the right entry point. It stops short of stating exclusions, e.g. that list_pdf_tools should be used to browse everything or get_pdf_tool to fetch a known tool.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe read profile. The description confirms a single-item retrieval but adds no further behavioral context such as not-found handling or error behavior; its only extra detail is the example id, which is parameter-oriented.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the example is compact and useful. Every element earns its place.

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 low-complexity read-by-id tool with a readOnlyHint and a one-property schema, the description covers purpose and parameter example adequately. It does not explain return values, but the tool's name and purpose make the single-tool return implied.

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 0% and the single 'id' parameter is only typed as string. The description adds that the value is a tool id and gives an example ('merge-pdf'), which helps, but it does not specify format, source, or case sensitivity.

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 ('Get'), resource ('one DocuGrip tool'), and scope ('by its id'), with a concrete example ('merge-pdf'). It is clearly a single-item retrieval distinct from list_pdf_tools and find_pdf_tool, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 'by its id' implies the prerequisite for use, but the description never states when to choose this over find_pdf_tool or list_pdf_tools, nor any exclusions. Usage is only implied.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds scope (it returns pricing, billing terms, suitability, purchase locations) but nothing further on behavior — no caching, freshness, or auth context. Adequate but not rich.

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, both earning their place, with the content summary front-loaded before the usage triggers. No redundancy or filler.

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, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the fields returned. With no parameters and a simple read-only contract, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the tool takes no filtering input.

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 (List) and resource (DocuGrip plans) and enumerates the returned fields: current price, billing terms, plan suitability, and where to buy. Siblings (find_pdf_tool, get_pdf_tool, list_pdf_tools) are clearly unrelated, so no differentiation is needed.

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 three explicit trigger conditions: user asks what DocuGrip costs, whether they must pay for a task, or which plan fits them. No when-not guidance or named alternative is provided, but no plausible alternative tool exists in this sibling set, so the gap is minor.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, and the description goes beyond that by disclosing the return payload: the official source, the date it was checked, and a compressor page pre-set to a safe target size. It adds real value about what the agent gets back, though it says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or behavior for unrecognized portals.

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, cleanly split between what the tool returns and when to invoke it, with the core purpose front-loaded. The example list is compact and every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is needed: the returned fields (limit, format, source, check date, compressor link) and the invocation trigger. Annotations already carry the safety profile, so nothing essential is missing.

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% and the single 'portal' parameter is already documented in the schema. The description's example list largely duplicates the schema's own examples, adding only marginal meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Look up the official file size limit and accepted format for an upload portal or service', with concrete examples (IRCC, USCIS, ImmiAccount, CM/ECF, Gmail, Turnitin, Etsy). The scope is unmistakable and clearly distinct from tool-finding siblings, but it never names or contrasts with an alternative, so it stops short of explicit sibling differentiation.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Use this when a user says a portal rejected their file or asks how big a PDF may be.' That covers the main invocation context well, but it offers no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., when to prefer find_pdf_tool or get_pdf_tool instead).

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower; the description adds real context by disclosing that only 'live' tools are returned and that results carry function, format, and per-language URLs. It omits any note on ordering or pagination, but for a small catalog that is minor.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the returned payload; nothing is padding.

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 no output schema, the description must sketch the return shape, and it does (tool description, accepted formats, per-language URL). It stops short of mentioning result size, ordering, or whether the catalog is stable, which would fully close the gap.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic burden and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the tool takes no input to narrow the list.

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 ('List every DocuGrip tool that is live') and enumerates the fields returned (function, file formats, localized URL). The plural 'every tool' implicitly contrasts with the singular siblings find_pdf_tool/get_pdf_tool, though it never names them.

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?

'Use this to see what is available' is a generic implied-use statement, not real routing guidance. It does not say when to prefer this catalog over find_pdf_tool or get_pdf_tool, nor any exclusion. Minimum viable.

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