generate_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is asynchronous (returns a record_id, requires polling check_status). It does not mention authentication, error handling, or side effects, but for a generation tool the async behavior is the key trait.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary action, the second adds scope, workflow, and sibling reference. Information is front-loaded.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and absent annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, usage flow, and key parameters. It mentions the async polling pattern and references sibling tools, though it could briefly note error scenarios or limits.

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?

All 5 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by referencing list_document_types for template_id and template_type, and noting default output_format, but largely mirrors schema descriptions.

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 tool generates a branded, personalized talent document from candidate text, and specifies it works for any document type from list_document_types. It distinguishes itself from siblings like format_from_linkedin and check_status by naming the specific resource and output.

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 explains when to use this tool: after selecting a document type via list_document_types, and then polling check_status for the result. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear and the workflow is outlined.

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