communicate_purchase_document_at

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully communicate behavioral traits. It fails to disclose that the action is binding (the schema mentions this in the 'confirm' parameter description but the description does not). It also does not mention side effects, prerequisites (document must be finalized, though implied), or potential errors. This is a significant gap for a fiscally binding action.

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?

A single, efficient sentence with no extraneous information. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (2 parameters, 1 required) and presence of an output schema, the description is minimal but omits important behavioral context (binding action, mandate for confirm=true). It is adequate for a straightforward action but lacks completeness for a sensitive fiscal operation.

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%, and the description does not add value beyond the schema. The confirm parameter's critical nature (binding fiscal action) is only in the schema. Baseline 3 applies as the schema already sufficiently describes parameters.

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 verb 'Communicate', the resource 'finalized purchase document', and the target 'AT (Portuguese tax authority)'. It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'communicate_sales_document_at' by specifying the document type.

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 implies the tool should be used when needing to send a finalized purchase document to the AT. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, the sibling tool name itself provides differentiation, and context signals include the sibling list. Clear enough for an agent.

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