print_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It details parameter semantics but says nothing about side effects, such as submitting a print job, blocking behavior, permission requirements, or what happens when the printer is unavailable. The dependency on an open document is only lightly implied.

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 compact and well-structured: one action sentence followed by a clean, line-per-argument list with conditional notes. There is no wasted prose; every line earns its place.

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?

Parameter documentation is strong, but for a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no stated output/error behavior, the description remains incomplete. It omits what the return value signifies, default printer behavior when printer_name is null, and how errors are reported, even if an output schema may cover some of this.

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 fully compensates by explaining every parameter: range values are enumerated (0=all, 1=current, 2=specified pages), from/to_page are tied to range=2, and doc_id is connected to open_document. This gives the agent actionable semantics that go well beyond the raw schema titles.

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 action ('Print the document') and the resource (a document identified by doc_id). No sibling tool competes with printing, so the simple verb+resource is sufficient, though it lacks explicit differentiation language.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and opening sentence, and the doc_id reference to open_document hints that a document must already be open. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives (none exist) or what prerequisites like printer availability are needed.

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