Generate the ProAbono pricing table embed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It does disclose that the identified flavour requires a customer reference and security hash, and that post-selection behavior is configured in the BackOffice. It does not mention output format, side effects, or any authentication requirements beyond the security hash, leaving some behavioral 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 three tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then efficiently explains modes and external configuration. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

The description covers the two modes and external config, but no output schema or annotations exist. It leaves unclear how the customer reference and security hash are supplied since they are absent from the input schema, and it doesn't describe what the generated embed looks like. These are notable gaps for a tool with no structured fallback.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning to the 'identified' parameter by explaining the two flavours and the subscribe-in-place implication. The note about customer reference and security hash adds context, even though those values are not schema parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generates') and resource ('the embed that renders the ProAbono pricing table'), making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like install_customer_portal, but the verb+resource combination is sufficiently distinct.

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 gives clear context for when to use the anonymous vs identified flavour, and notes the dependency on customer reference/security hash for the identified case. However, it does not mention when to prefer a sibling tool or provide any explicit exclusions, so guidance for alternative selection is missing.

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