generate_report

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 output is a base64-encoded PDF and lists included elements (TOC, headings, bookmarks, footers, tables, callouts). However, it does not mention potential limitations like file size, processing time, or error conditions (e.g., missing content).

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 concise—a single sentence followed by a list of key features. Every element is relevant and directly helps the agent understand what the tool does. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The description covers the return format (base64 PDF) and major output features (TOC, bookmarks, tables). Given the absence of an output schema, this is helpful. However, it could be more complete by mentioning error handling, required page margins, or content size limits to fully prepare the agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, so the description adds no additional parameter information. The feature list in the description does not elaborate on parameter details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Generate a professional multi-section report PDF', specifying the verb and resource. It lists features like TOC, headings, bookmarks, and footers, which distinguish it from sibling tools like generate_invoice, generate_from_markdown, and generate_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 implies usage for multi-section report generation with specific formatting features but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. It lacks guidance on scenarios where generate_from_markdown might be preferred.

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