delivery_notes_pdf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It discloses that the output is base64-encoded PDF binary data and that there's a status prerequisite. However, it doesn't mention potential error conditions (e.g., what happens if the delivery note is in another status) or response size implications of base64 encoding. This is reasonable but not comprehensive for an unannotated read/download 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?

Three sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with the core purpose (download PDF), then return format, then status prerequisite, then optional behaviors. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a download tool with 100% schema coverage and a clear return type stated, the description covers the essential usage points: what it does, the status constraint, and the optional flags. It could mention padding/error behavior for non-eligible statuses, but for a straightforward PDF retrieval tool, this is adequately complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters well. The description adds modest value by explaining the status constraint on the uuid and the hideVAT/hidePrices purpose (simplified delivery documents), which complements the schema. This aligns with the baseline 3 for full schema 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 downloads a PDF for a delivery note and specifies the base64-encoded return format. It names the specific resource (delivery note) and verb (download/returns PDF), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like delivery_notes_get and delivery_notes_list.

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 specifies that the delivery note must be in 'issued or converted' status, which is a clear prerequisite condition for use. It also explains the optional hideVAT/hidePrices behavior, giving context for when those options apply, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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