evidence_case_file_report_generate

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

Annotations are all false, offering no safety profile, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the report is SIGNED/certified and that a reportId is returned, plus the need for later download calls. However, it does not discuss side effects, permission requirements, or idempotency, leaving behavioral depth incomplete.

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?

Three sentences, beginning with the primary purpose, then return value and next steps, then prerequisites. Every sentence contributes information without redundancy or excessive length.

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?

Despite having a complex 9-parameter schema with nested objects and low schema coverage, the description is sparse. It omits parameter meanings and the structure of the data object, leaving an agent without enough information to correctly construct inputs. The high-level workflow is present, but not the detail needed for successful invocation.

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 only 22% (caseFileId and reportId have descriptions), and the description itself only references caseFileId and reportId. It fails to explain template, languageCode, data, filename, metadata, deletionDate, or additionalData. There is also ambiguity about reportId being both a required input and a return value, confusing parameter usage.

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's function: generating the signed evidentiary report of a case file. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the return of a reportId and the subsequent download steps via PDF/zip URL tools, and by referencing the preview tool as a prerequisite.

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 explicit workflow guidance: it requires a caseFileId from evidence_case_file_create, recommends previewing with evidence_case_file_report_preview first, and directs the user to follow-up download tools. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context relative to alternatives.

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