send_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/external-effect profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of what the send does to the target chat, whether it can be re-sent, permission requirements, or size/rate limits — meaningful gaps for an outward-facing message-sending tool.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, so there is no wasted text. However, brevity here reads as under-specification rather than discipline: a 19-parameter, open-world send tool needs more than five words to be callable with confidence.

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?

Given 19 parameters, no output schema, and a crowded sibling set of media-sending tools, the definition is far too thin. An agent gets no help on routing, on the many undocumented optional parameters, or on expected results — the annotations alone are expected to carry nearly the whole burden.

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 only 53% across 19 parameters, and several properties (callback_query_id, message_effect_id, message_thread_id, business_connection_id, direct_messages_topic_id, reply_markup) carry no description in the schema either. The description contributes zero parameter meaning, so the undocumented half stays opaque; it does not compensate for the coverage gap as the low-coverage guidance requires.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Send') with a specific resource ('a general file (document)'), and the parenthetical '(document)' maps directly to the required 'document' parameter. It implicitly separates this from media-specific senders like send_photo or send_video by calling it a 'general file', but it never names those siblings or explains the boundary 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to pick send_document over send_photo, send_video, send_audio, or send_media_group, nor any prerequisites such as needing a valid chat_id or a resolvable file reference. The agent must infer the routing decision entirely from the tool name against ~180 siblings.

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