document_render_stored

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does add useful return-value context: a signed `download_url` requiring no API key and a validity window ending at `expires_at`. However, it says nothing about whether a render is persisted as a retrievable resource (the siblings `document_get_render` and `document_download_render` imply it is), nor about idempotency semantics, cost, or rate limits for a tool that has an `Idempotency-Key` parameter.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the routing decision, then the return contract. No filler and no restatement of the name.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description covers the key return fields (`download_url`, `expires_at`), which is good. But for a 7-parameter rendering tool it omits whether a render becomes a durable object addressable by the render-inspection siblings, and it leaves the majority of parameters unexplained, so an agent still has gaps before calling it confidently.

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 43% across 7 parameters, and the description adds no parameter guidance beyond echoing the `expires_at` concept. `document_id`, `template_id`, `page_size`, and `Idempotency-Key` are undocumented in both schema and prose, and the expiry floor/ceiling behavior is not restated in the description.

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?

"Render a stored document to a PDF" gives a specific verb (render), resource (stored document), and output format. The second sentence reinforces the scope word "stored," which is exactly what separates it from the sibling `render_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?

It states the selecting condition ("Use this when the document lives here") and names the alternative with its own condition ("To render one you hold yourself, without storing it, use `render_document`"). Both branches of the decision are explicit, leaving nothing to inference.

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