Messaging_createLegalDisclosure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavior burden; it does disclose that this sends a critical message remotely from the Kuudo deployment. However, it omits side effects, permissions, reversibility, and response behavior, which matters for a send/mutation operation.

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 definition is short and behavior is stated up front, but the opening 'Catalog entry.' adds little and the deployment note is slightly cryptic. Overall it is efficient with only minor 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?

For a low-complexity tool with no params and no output schema, the description is adequate for selection. But it never explains what additional properties are accepted (schema allows arbitrary ones) or what identifiers/context are needed, so invocation guidance is incomplete.

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 schema has zero properties and 100% coverage, so there are no parameters for the description to clarify. AdditionalProperties is true, which creates slight ambiguity, but the zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 ('Sends') and defines the resource as a critical message containing legally required disclosure documents for a seller-buyer transaction. This clearly differentiates it from sibling Messaging tools like sendInvoice or CreateWarranty by its legal-document purpose.

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?

It states the deployment context ('Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here') and the triggering condition (seller legally obligated to provide documents to buyer). It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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