document_series_numbering_decision

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: the numbering arithmetic (first = first issued or next free, last = first + rangeSize - 1, extended to the highest number already issued), the warning conditions for a missing representative or registration number, and the PDF layout when outFile is supplied. The one nuance left unstated is that supplying outFile writes a file to disk, which is a mild side effect not reflected in readOnlyHint=true.

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?

Front-loaded with the definition and legal basis, then derivation rules, then return/output behavior — a logical order with no filler. It is dense (two long sentences packing many clauses), so it is slightly heavy to parse, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, 7 optional parameters and no annotations covering semantics, the description does the heavy lifting: it describes the returned JSON sections and the PDF contents, plus the warning cases. It does not say what happens when no document series exist for the company or how errors surface, which is the main remaining gap.

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, but the description goes further by explaining what rangeSize actually produces (the extension to the highest already-issued number) and contrasting the two output modes governed by outFile (JSON vs signed-ready PDF). year, decisionDate, decisionNumber and responsible are left largely to the schema, but the schema documents them adequately.

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 identifies the concrete artifact produced (the yearly numbering decision under OMFP 2634/2015) and how it is derived from the company's document series, which clearly separates it from siblings like document_series_list or document_series_create. The generation verb itself is only implied ('Returns the decision as JSON', 'pass outFile to save the PDF') rather than stated up front, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 by the legal framing (a yearly decision naming the numbering-responsible person), so an agent can infer this is the once-a-year compliance document for a company. However, there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no alternative tool is named (e.g. document_series_list for inspecting series, document_generate for other documents).

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