sendDocument

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It usefully discloses that a Message is returned on success and that file size is limited to 50 MB. However, it does not mention side effects, error conditions, authentication requirements, or multipart upload behavior, which are significant gaps for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource, and the second sentence adds the success return value and a key size constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 covers the success return value, which is important because there is no output schema, and it mentions the file size limit. However, for a 17-parameter tool with no annotations, it lacks routing guidance and does not explain when sendDocument should be chosen over specialized media senders. The schema fills parameter gaps, but the description leaves some invocation context unspecified.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema; 'general files' loosely reflects the document parameter, but it adds no meaningful detail about chat_id, document formats, or optional fields. This is acceptable only because the schema is complete.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Send general files.' It is clear that this tool sends documents, and the phrase 'general files' loosely differentiates it from specialized media senders like sendPhoto and sendAudio. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast against sibling tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use sendDocument versus related alternatives such as sendPhoto, sendVideo, or sendAudio. The phrase 'general files' implies a category, but the description does not state exclusions, preferred cases, or conditions that would route an agent to a different send method. The 50 MB limit is a constraint, not usage guidance.

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