create_financial_workbook

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose key actions: server downloads the document, parses it, generates Excel, validates it, and returns only the path; it also does not return the original disclosure text. It explains that allow_body defaults to false and refuses to generate the body unless explicitly approved. However, it omits potential failure modes, such as what happens if validation fails, and doesn't mention side effects like file overwriting or server resource usage. These are notable gaps given the lack of annotation support.

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 structured logically: a concise purpose statement, a brief behavior note, then a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler. The critical constraint about candidate_id and the allow_body condition are front-loaded, and the parameter list is easy to scan. It is neither overly verbose nor under-specified.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, input requirements, output behavior (path only), and the approval gate for allow_body. Minor omissions include lack of explicit error handling/return format details on failure and clarification that the output directory must already exist. These are not critical for invoking the tool correctly, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 fully compensate. Every parameter is explained in the Args section: candidate_id must come from list_financial_document_candidates (and should not be manually constructed), scope has explicit enum values (consolidated/separate), output_dir must be an existing writable directory, output_name includes a filename example with .xlsx, and allow_body has a condition and default behavior. This goes well beyond the bare schema titles and adds critical operational meaning.

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 specific verb ('makes'), a specific resource ('validated financial statements Excel'), and a clear outcome ('returns only the path'). It also explains the server-side behavior (download, parse, create, validate) which distinguishes it from the many retrieval get_* siblings. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 clear context on how to use it: it references list_financial_document_candidates for candidate_id and specifies that candidate_id must be taken from there. It also gives an explicit condition for allow_body (only after user approval when audit/review reports are absent). While it doesn't explicitly say 'use this instead of sibling get_* tools,' the tool's unique create nature and the reference to the candidate list make the usage context clear.

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