sibs_generate_mb_reference

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

Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return payload (entity, reference number, amount) and that it is for ATM/homebanking payment, but it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether a charge is created, expiry behavior, idempotency, or whether the reference becomes immediately payable). This is acceptable but not rich.

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 one sentence and front-loads the main purpose. It also lists the key return fields, which is useful. It is concise and efficient, though it could add a sentence about behavioral context without becoming bloated.

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 there is no output schema, the description's mention of the return fields (entity, reference number, amount) is helpful. However, for a payment tool, an agent might need to know whether the amount and currency are mandatory together, what happens on expiry, and whether this invokes an actual payment reference that can be used immediately. The description is adequate for basic invocation but misses some payment-specific context.

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 each parameter is documented in the schema. The description itself does not add further parameter-level meaning beyond naming the output amount. It does not clarify that 'amount' is in minor units, but the schema already states that. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Generate a Multibanco (MB) payment reference') and identifies the resource (payment reference) and output (entity, reference number, amount). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like sibs_mbway_payment or sibs_payment_status because it names the specific Multibanco reference generation function.

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 the use case (generating a Multibanco reference for ATM/homebanking payment) and the return includes entity, reference number, and amount. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., when an MBWay payment or checkout would be preferred), nor does it mention conditions like required prior setup or relationship to transactionId.

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