agent_sign_pdf

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

With annotations absent, the description carries the full burden. It discloses output behavior (signed copies written next to originals or into outDir), error handling (stops at first PIN error to protect token), and the invisible/visible signature option. It does not mention all possible side effects (e.g., whether originals are modified), but the main behaviors are covered.

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 well-structured and concise, with the main purpose stated upfront, followed by examples, input/output details, and error behavior. No redundant or ambiguous 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?

For a tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description covers all key aspects: what it does, how it operates, output location, required credentials, and error handling. An agent can reasonably decide when and how to invoke it without additional information.

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?

While the schema already provides descriptions for all parameters, the tool description adds valuable context: it clarifies that directories are scanned for all *.pdf files, explains the default output location, and details the PIN fallback options and batch-stop behavior. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 (sign PDF files), the resource (PDF files), the method (qualified certificate via local Storno Agent), and provides concrete examples (declarations, contracts). It is unambiguous and distinguishes this tool from declaration or invoice tools.

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 gives examples of when to use (declarations, contracts, documents for ANAF or partners) and prerequisites (PIN). It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but the context and examples strongly imply the intended use case, making it sufficiently clear.

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