generate_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('complete, ready-to-use Markdown') and the tailoring behavior ('tailored to your industry and company'). This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent a clear expectation of the output. However, it does not mention potential limitations or the need for legal review, which would be useful but not strictly required.

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 verb and resource, and contains zero waste. Every phrase earns its place: what it generates, examples, tailoring, and output format.

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 tool is a straightforward generator with a well-structured schema and no output schema required. The description explains the return format and purpose, making the tool complete for invocation. It does not explicitly state that there are 12 doc types or mention sibling tools, but this is not essential given the name and schema.

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 schema fully documents parameters. The description adds minimal parameter context ('tailored to your industry and company' implicitly references industry and companyName), but it does not explain docType options or companyDesc beyond what the schema enumerations and descriptions already provide.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') tied to a clear resource ('professional compliance document') and lists concrete examples (privacy policy, terms of service, employee handbook, HIPAA policy). It clearly differentiates from siblings: 'export_document' exports existing documents and 'list_document_types' lists types, while this tool creates a new document.

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 clearly conveys when to use this tool (when you need a new compliance document tailored to your industry and company), but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions. The context is clear enough that an agent can infer this is for generating, not exporting or listing, but it stops short of naming siblings for contrast.

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