reunion_get_caf_beneficiaries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses output structure (date, benefit type, count), sorting order (date descending), and benefit coverage. It does not reveal potential pagination behavior or update risks, but as a read-only data retrieval, this is adequate.

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 concise (3-4 sentences), front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or missing information.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description covers essential return structure, sorting, and benefit scope. It also references a sibling tool for deeper analysis. Slightly lacking mention of pagination limits or date format, but the schema covers those.

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 coverage is 100% with thorough parameter descriptions. The tool description adds minimal new parameter info beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., benefit type examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns 'Monthly counts of beneficiaries of CAF social benefits in La Réunion' with specific benefit types listed. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning combination with reunion_get_caf_amounts.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use (get beneficiary counts) and suggests a complementary tool (reunion_get_caf_amounts). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to other similar tools.

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