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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only says 'create' and gives a data example; it doesn't mention permissions, validation, idempotency, or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded and the data example 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?

For a simple create operation with an output schema, the description covers the core inputs and purpose. It doesn't explain how to handle required fields or pair with get_doctype_meta, but that's not essential.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining 'data' as field values with an example and referring to doctype as the target DocType. It doesn't explain how to specify valid doctype values, but enough meaning is added.

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?

States 'Create a new document of the given DocType' with a clear verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling get/update/delete/list operations by focusing on creation.

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?

Implies usage when a new document should be created, but offers no explicit comparison to update_document or guidance on when not to use it. No alternatives are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the destructive and irreversible nature ('Permanently delete', 'cannot be undone'), which is critical safety information. It doesn't mention permissions, cascading effects, or failure modes, but the core destructive behavior is clearly conveyed.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the action and immediately provide the key safety warning. No words are wasted.

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?

While the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description lacks parameter semantics and usage guidance. It also doesn't address prerequisites or side effects beyond permanence, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke.

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?

The input schema has two parameters (doctype, name) with zero schema descriptions, and the tool description doesn't explain either parameter. This is a significant gap since the description must compensate when schema coverage is low.

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 'Permanently delete a document' using a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('document'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_document, get_document, and update_document. The addition of 'Permanently' clarifies the scope and irreversibility of the operation.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The permanent, irreversible warning implies caution but doesn't specify contexts or exclusions, leaving usage to be inferred from the tool name and the warning.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention return value format, error handling, pagination behavior, or how filters affect the count. 'Optionally matching filters' hints at behavior but adds minimal insight beyond the schema.

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, compact sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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?

While the output schema exists and may cover return values, the description fails to fully specify filter usage, edge cases, or constraints. Given the opaque schema and lack of annotations, the description is too sparse to be considered complete for a tool with this parameter complexity.

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 compensate. It clarifies that doctype is the target and filters are for matching, but it does not explain the accepted filter formats (array vs object) or syntax, which are ambiguous in the schema. This is insufficient for a low-coverage schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Count' and clearly identifies the resource as 'documents of a DocType', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_documents, get_document, and run_report. The optional filter mention adds precision to the operation.

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 such as list_documents or run_report. The description only defines the function without contextual cues or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. The verb 'Fetch' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects. The phrase 'field/schema definition' adds precision about the nature of the response, though it doesn't discuss error handling or response format (covered by output schema).

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and immediately provide a practical use case. No filler or redundant information; every word 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?

The tool is simple (1 parameter, output schema present), and the description covers the primary purpose and usage context. It could mention that the doctype parameter is required, but that is already indicated in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'a DocType' which maps to the single 'doctype' parameter, but adds no details about required values or formatting. The meaning is inferable from the parameter name, but the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource as 'field/schema definition (metadata) for a DocType.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_document (which fetches a document) and list_documents.

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 explicitly states it is 'Useful for discovering what fields exist before create_document/update_document calls,' providing concrete context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools, but the use case is clear enough for an agent to choose it over siblings.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Fetch', which implies a read-only operation, but reveals nothing about error handling (e.g., behavior when not found), authentication, or side effects. This is a minimal disclosure of behavior.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides an illustrative example. Both sentences earn their place, and the most critical information is front-loaded. No redundant or vague wording.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no nesting) and has an output schema, so return values are covered externally. The description adequately explains the input semantics and usage for a basic fetch. It lacks nuance about edge cases or access constraints, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by labeling docType as the document type and name as the primary key, with a concrete example. However, it does not explain parameter formats, constraints, or how they relate beyond the example, leaving some ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') with a resource ('a single document') and identifies the key parameters (DocType and name). The example further clarifies the exact operation. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_documents (multiple) and create/update/delete (mutations).

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 rather than explicit: the description states it fetches a single document by key, which suggests using it when the primary key is known. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use list_documents to browse'). The example demonstrates a call but not when to choose this tool over siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains how filters, fields, order_by, limit, and limit_start affect the query and notes defaults. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error behavior, but these are generally less critical for a read-only list tool.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a bulleted list of parameter explanations. Every sentence and example adds value without redundancy.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered externally. The description addresses all six parameters and includes defaults and examples, making it functionally complete. It lacks explicit mention of read-only behavior or when to choose this over sibling list-type tools, but those are secondary gaps.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It provides detailed syntax examples for filters, field selection, ordering, and pagination offsets, adding substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'List/search documents of a DocType' clearly specifies the action (list/search) and resource (documents of a DocType). It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_document (which retrieves a single document) and create/update/delete (which are mutations).

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 implies usage for listing or searching multiple documents, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_count, get_document, or run_report. There is no direct comparison or exclusion of other tool usage scenarios.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only explains that a report is run and a result returned, but says nothing about potential side effects of script reports, required permissions, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a significant gap for a tool that may execute arbitrary scripts.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose with no unnecessary words or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the information it conveys.

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 two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema details visible, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how to specify filters, what report_name must match, or any behavioral constraints. While an output schema exists, the description still leaves the tool's usage ambiguous and incomplete for a potentially complex reporting tool.

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?

The input schema has 2 parameters (report_name, filters) but the description provides zero coverage of them. It does not explain what report_name refers to, what format filters should take, or how the parameters relate to the report. The description fails to compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 runs a Frappe/ERPNext Query or Script Report and returns its result. This distinguishes it from sibling document CRUD tools (list_documents, create_document, etc.) by specifying a unique verb and resource.

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 implies this tool is for running reports, which differentiates it from the document CRUD siblings, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternative tools. There is no clear exclusion or when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral expectations. It mentions updating fields, hinting at partial modification, but fails to explain what happens if the document does not exist, whether permissions are required, or how unspecified fields are treated. This leaves significant uncertainty for a mutation tool.

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 concise at two sentences, with the first stating the core function and the second providing a concrete example for the data parameter. Every word serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded for quick understanding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are not required in the description. However, the tool has three required parameters, and the description explains only one. It also lacks usage guidance and behavioral notes, making it incomplete for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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 compensate by explaining all parameters. It only describes the 'data' parameter with an example, leaving 'doctype' and 'name' without any explanation. Although these names are somewhat intuitive, the description does not alleviate the lack of schema detail.

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 identifies the tool's action: updating fields on an existing document. The verb 'update' combined with 'existing document' distinguishes it from create, delete, and get operations, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state that it should be used only for existing documents, nor does it reference create_document for new records. The description implies usage but offers no decision framework.

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