Generate a Letter of Authorization

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

Annotations are neutral, but the description adds behavioral details: it supersedes prior LOAs, requires step-up MFA, and lists specific error types. Minor deduction because it doesn't detail the upload behavior or MFA process.

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 well-structured, front-loading the main action and including prerequisites, alternatives, and error info. Every sentence is concise and valuable.

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 the complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers purpose, timing, prerequisites, alternatives, and errors comprehensively. It explains how to handle INVALID_PAYLOAD errors.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds value by grouping required fields and specifying that attestation must be true. However, it implies signer, losing_carrier, and authorizing_party are required, while schema marks them optional, causing slight inconsistency.

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 renders a WARP-branded LOA PDF for one off-net SPID group and uploads it, superseding prior LOAs. It distinguishes from the sibling tool port_upload_document by noting the alternative. The verb 'Render' and resource are specific.

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?

Explicitly says 'Only valid BEFORE the port is submitted' and that every off-net group needs a current LOA before port_submit_request succeeds. It also provides an alternative (port_upload_document) and lists prerequisites including MFA.

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