send_document

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as delivery semantics, required permissions, format limitations, or side effects beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices valuable explanatory content, making it minimally acceptable.

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 tool with 15 parameters and no output schema, this description is severely under-specified. It lacks essential context such as file size limits, return behavior, error conditions, or how the document is sent, leaving the agent without enough information to use the tool confidently.

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 only 53%, so the description should compensate by explaining key parameter behavior. It does not mention any parameters or their meanings, leaving the agent to rely solely on the sparse schema descriptions.

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 ('Send') and the resource ('a general file (document)'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like send_photo or send_video, relying on the word 'general' to imply the distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The word 'general' hints at use for non-specific file types, but there are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references.

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