document_lifecycle_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety traits. The description adds mild context by specifying 'fiscal/SDI lifecycle status', but does not discuss side effects, permissions, or output behavior beyond what annotations imply.

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 a single sentence, making it concise, but it sacrifices detail. For a tool with 4 parameters and specific context, slightly more structured information would improve usability without losing conciseness.

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 complexity (4 parameters, 2 required) and lack of parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It omits output behavior, optional parameter effects, and any domain-specific constraints, making it hard for an agent to use correctly without additional context.

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%, meaning parameters are completely undocumented. The description does not explain the meaning or roles of 'documentId', 'direction', 'asOfDate', or 'confirm_read', leaving the agent with no semantic understanding of required inputs.

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 verb 'explain' and the resource 'one document's fiscal/SDI lifecycle status', indicating a specific read operation. It distinguishes implicitly from sibling tools like 'aruba_explain_invoice_type' or 'fiscal_document_summary' by focusing on lifecycle status, though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context. The description lacks any indication of suitable scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.

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