document_generate

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

With no annotations, the description still discloses that the endpoint is public, nothing is stored, and that passing outFile writes the PDF locally. It also describes the base64 return when outFile is omitted. Minor details like overwrite behavior are not mentioned, but the main side effects are transparent.

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 dense but not padded; it packs document schemas, date format, output behavior, and signing guidance into a compact form. The nested bracket notation is efficient, though the list is long.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough context for basic invocation: inputs, nested fields, optionality, date format, output delivery, and storage behavior. It could be more precise about the role of HTML and response structure, but the core usage is 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?

The schema covers the top-level parameters, and the description expands the 'fields' object by enumerating the nested fields for each document type, marking optional ones with '?', and specifying the date format. The semantics of outFile are also explained.

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 ('Generate a standard legal document as PDF'), names the exact document types, and enumerates the accepted 'type' values. It is easy to distinguish from the many sibling tools because the scope is specific and explicit.

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?

It explains the two output modes (outFile vs base64) and explicitly points to agent_sign_pdf for signing. It does not directly contrast with declaration_build/declaration_pdf, but the document-type restriction and follow-up signing guidance are clear enough for practical use.

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