send_document

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that `document` can be a URL or file_id, but does not disclose side effects (message creation), permissions, rate limits, or return behavior. This is a mutating action but no safety context is provided.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no redundant wording. Every phrase adds value, including the note about document types.

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 send operation with no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal but incomplete operationally. It lacks usage context, any caveats, and sufficient parameter detail to confidently invoke the tool in varied scenarios. However, the tool's simplicity prevents a score of 1.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter semantics. It clarifies that `document` accepts a URL or file_id, which is useful, but provides no additional meaning for `chat_id` or `caption`. Only one of three parameters receives semantic enrichment.

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 action ('Send') and resource ('document/file to a chat'), which distinguishes it from sibling send_* tools targeting other content types. The added note that `document` can be a URL or file_id reinforces the tool's scope.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The description does not indicate when to choose this over send_message, send_photo, etc., nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Context must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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