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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses key behaviors: national rules validation, structured errors, the return of a watermarked PDF and price, and the not_covered items that must be relayed. This adds substantial value over the annotations alone.

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 three focused sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by critical output/error details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or vague 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?

With no output schema, the description covers the main return values (preview, price, errors, not_covered items) well. However, it omits a prerequisite like calling get_requirements first, and does not explain the user workflow beyond the immediate generation step, so it is not fully complete.

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 low at 25% (only 'answers' has a description), and the description does not compensate. It references 'answers' but provides no explanation of document_type, country, or language, leaving agents to infer their meaning from names and patterns.

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 and resource: 'Generate a draft of the document from the user's answers.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like purchase_document by framing it as a preview that includes a price and watermarked PDF.

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 clearly establishes the context: generate a draft from user answers and relay validation errors or not_covered items. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose and workflow are strongly implied, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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