rendoc

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 effectively describes the return values (status, download URL, file size, page count, creation date), which adds valuable context beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving minor gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and return values. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without unnecessary elaboration or redundancy.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but it could improve by mentioning error cases or prerequisites. Without an output schema, the return value details are helpful, though not exhaustive.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'document_id' fully documented in the schema as 'The document ID returned from generate_document'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensating for any gaps.

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 'Get details about' and the resource 'a previously generated document by its ID', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like generate_document (which creates documents) and list_templates (which lists templates), avoiding tautology by not just restating the tool name.

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 usage by specifying 'previously generated document', suggesting this tool is for retrieving details after creation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like get_usage or list_templates. No exclusions or clear alternatives are provided, leaving some ambiguity in context.

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