media.send_kit

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

The description discloses a two-step OTP flow, explains that a token is returned from Step 1 and required in Step 2, and clearly implies the side effect of dispatching a media kit by email. This is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false) and adds behavioral context beyond what annotations alone 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?

Two sentences with no waste. The first sentence captures the purpose, and the second elegantly front-loads the two-step invocation sequence. Every phrase earns 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 two-step tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it names the steps, the required parameters per step, and the source of the token. It omits error cases or expiry behavior, but these are not essential for basic invocation.

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%, so the baseline is a 3. The description adds workflow meaning by mapping parameters to steps: 'email' for Step 1, and 'otp' plus the Step-1-returned 'token' for Step 2. This clarifies the relationship and timing of parameters beyond the schema's individual 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 opens with a specific verb ('Dispatches'), a clear resource ('Ritwik Joshi's official Media & Press Kit'), and the target ('to an email'). This is unambiguous and easily distinguished from all sibling tools, which cover speaker profiles, keynotes, events, blog search, FAQ, and booking info.

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 provides explicit step-by-step usage: Step 1 with only 'email' to send an OTP, then Step 2 with 'email', 'otp', and the returned 'token'. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the sibling set is so distinct that the intended context is clear.

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