Stamp your business details in the footer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context: the data source (shared profile from mcp-invoice and mcp-docx), the placement (footer), and page coverage (every page). However, it does not disclose whether the source file is modified vs. a new file is written, and the trailing 'Pro.' hints at licensing/feature gating without explaining it — a meaningful transparency gap for a write operation.

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 core guidance is compact — two substantive sentences plus a one-word tail. However, 'Call this tool to' is filler that restates the title, 'from the shared profile mcp-invoice and mcp-docx write' is grammatically tangled, and the standalone 'Pro.' contributes nothing actionable. The useful information is front-loaded but the presentation is sloppy.

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 writing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core what and when adequately, and the shared-profile sourcing explains where the business data comes from. Gaps remain: the ambiguous 'Pro.' licensing implication, no reassurance about whether the source PDF is left untouched, and no contrast with pdf_stamp for generic watermarking needs. It is sufficient for a capable agent to invoke correctly, but not 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 fully documents all four parameters (path, out_path, pages, overwrite), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds the high-level semantic context that the watermark content is business name and VAT id, but it adds no per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific action (put business name and VAT id in the footer of every page) and identifies a clear resource (PDF documents). The business-specific scope and the shared-profile source implicitly differentiate it from sibling pdf_stamp, though that contrast is not explicit. The awkward phrasing of 'from the shared profile mcp-invoice and mcp-docx write' and the cryptic trailing 'Pro.' slightly cloud an otherwise clear statement.

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 explicit usage timing: 'Use it before sending a document out.' It also implies the condition for use — documents that should carry the business identify from the shared profile. It does not name alternatives (e.g., pdf_stamp) or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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