docbridge_contract

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond this: it discloses that the tool is a static, versioned contract ('schema 0.2.4') and that it should be invoked as a prerequisite before interpreting reports, which is behavioral context the annotations do not carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource definition, followed by the actionable 'Call this before interpreting a report' directive and a version tag. The mid-sentence enumeration is lengthy but each item ('what verbatim means per format', 'whether Pandoc is available') earns its place by telling the agent what questions this tool answers.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it does not attempt to. For a zero-parameter introspection tool it fully characterizes what the contract covers and when to consult it, leaving no gap that would cause an incorrect call.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly offers no parameter guidance because none is needed, and schema coverage is 100%, so nothing is left ambiguous about invocation inputs.

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 names a specific resource (the vocabulary/contract every response uses) and enumerates its contents (statuses, reasons, error codes, format capabilities, normalization, verbatim semantics, Pandoc availability). The verb is only implied via 'Call this', but an agent can immediately tell this is a schema/introspection tool, clearly distinct from the operational siblings like document_read or pdf_merge.

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?

Provides an explicit when-to-use directive: 'Call this before interpreting a report.' This gives a clear sequencing condition rather than leaving usage to inference. It does not name an alternative or an exclusion, but no sibling serves the same introspection role, so the practical guidance is adequate.

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