generate_test_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'Local only; works in demo mode' and 'Read-only or local operation', which provide extra context about execution environment and side effects. However, the phrase 'Read-only or local operation' is slightly ambiguous and doesn't add rich behavioral detail beyond what annotations already convey.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and parameters. Each sentence adds distinct information: first covers functionality and overrides, second covers execution constraints. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple generator with good annotations and a clear schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is generated, the document types, overrides, and local/demo nature. It does not detail return format, but this is not critical given the tool's simple purpose and the absence of an output schema. Overall, it is adequately complete for an AI 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?

Schema coverage is only 50%, with poNumber and controlNumber lacking descriptions. The description compensates by naming 'control number, PO, and date overrides', clarifying the purpose of these parameters. It also lists the document types for the 'type' parameter, reinforcing the enum values. This adds meaningful value beyond the schema.

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 synthetic X12 samples for specific transaction types (850, 810, 856, 837) with optional overrides. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like parse_edi or validate_edi, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides context that this is a local, demo-mode operation, implying it is intended for testing and not production use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the 'local only' and 'demo mode' clues give clear usage context.

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