Stamp your business details in the footer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds that the footer content is drawn from a shared profile, which is genuinely useful context, but it says nothing about the non-idempotent overwrite behavior or what happens to an existing out_path.

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?

It is short, but the middle clause "from the shared profile mcp-invoice and mcp-docx write" is garbled and hard to parse, and the trailing "Pro." is a dangling fragment that does not earn its place.

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 four-parameter write tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is barely adequate. The garbled profile clause leaves ambiguity about where the business details originate, which an agent would need clarified before invoking it reliably.

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 all four parameters including pages and overwrite are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: putting business name and VAT id into the footer of every page. An agent can identify the operation clearly, though it never differentiates itself from the sibling pdf_stamp, which plausibly does overlapping work.

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?

"Use it before sending a document out" gives a timing cue, which is useful implied usage. However, it names no alternative and no when-not condition, and the fragmented clause about the shared profile does not clarify routing against siblings like pdf_stamp.

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