document_series_numbering_decision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states the tool returns JSON by default or writes a PDF when outFile is provided, explains the computation of first/last numbers, and mentions warnings for missing representative or registration number. It does not claim any hidden side effects, but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify company data, which is a minor gap. Overall, it is transparent about its outputs and the file-writing side effect.

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 dense paragraph but well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then the computation logic, then the output formats. It packs essential information without excessive fluff, though it could be split into clearer sentences. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors: the JSON structure (company identification, legal basis, rows, warnings) and the PDF alternative. It does not address error conditions (e.g., missing document series) or edge cases, but for a generation tool with optional parameters, it is largely complete. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the description of the JSON fields.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the formula for planned last number (first + rangeSize - 1), the default for responsible (company representative) and decisionDate (1 January), and the effect of outFile on output format. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions and helps the agent understand how parameters interact.

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's purpose: it generates a yearly internal numbering decision (OMFP 2634/2015) that assigns a responsible person and lists series/number ranges per document type. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like document_series_list, which manage series data rather than producing a decision document. The verb and resource are specific and 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?

The description explains what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It implies it is for creating a yearly decision based on existing document series, but it does not state prerequisites (e.g., series must exist) or when not to use it. No alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the selection up to the agent's inference.

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