Generate PDF report

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

The annotations already convey idempotency and non-destructiveness, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful behavioral details: it returns a download URL, supports specific models, and accepts custom report names. It does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or failure modes, but given the annotations, this is an acceptable but not rich disclosure.

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 three sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the return type, supported models, and the optional parameter behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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, combined with the output schema and annotations, covers the main purpose, return behavior, and some parameter semantics. Still, it does not mention how the ids parameter should be interpreted or provide any example invocation, and it gives no guidance for handling unsupported models. This is workable but not fully complete for a tool with 0% schema description coverage.

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 does add meaning for 'model' by listing common supported models and for 'report_name' by explaining custom report support. However, it leaves the required 'ids' parameter essentially unexplained beyond the schema's type and title, which is a clear gap for a required parameter.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a PDF report for Odoo records' and adds a concrete output behavior ('Returns a download URL'). It is much more informative than the title, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'aidoo_report', so it misses the sibling-differentiation element of a 5.

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 implies its usage context by focusing on Odoo records and enumerating supported models (sale.order, account.move, purchase.order, stock.picking). It also gives guidance for the optional report_name parameter. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over sibling alternatives like aidoo_report or aidoo_document, leaving selection partly to inference.

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