ask_document_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states that it sends a message to an agent and lists action examples. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the call is synchronous, what happens if the agent is unavailable, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is minimal.

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, with a few sentences and a structured args block. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. While it could be slightly more compact, it is not verbose.

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 explains the purpose and provides parameter examples. Since an output schema exists (context signal indicates 'Has output schema: true'), it does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks information about error handling or the nature of the agent response.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by describing 'message' as 'Your message or question for the document agent' and 'action' with examples ('chat', 'compare_versions', 'export_evidence_pack', etc.). However, it does not explain the expected format of the message or provide a complete list of actions.

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 verb 'Send a message', the resource 'document intelligence agent', and the scope: 'general document questions, analysis, comparisons, or any document operation not covered by the specific tools above'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing more specific document tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for general document questions, analysis, comparisons, or any document operation not covered by the specific tools above', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It implies when not to use (when a specific tool exists) but does not list the specific sibling tools or give explicit exclusions.

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