sendChecklist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the action (send), the account restriction, and the success return value ('the sent Message is returned'), but it does not mention permissions required beyond the business account, failure behavior, or side effects such as message notifications. This is acceptable but not deeply transparent.

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 short sentences carry the essential information with no filler. The main action and scope are front-loaded, and the return behavior is a useful second sentence rather than an afterthought.

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 sending operation with no output schema, the description supplies the crucial business-only constraint and the return type, while the schema covers all parameter semantics. It doesn't elaborate on checklist formatting or error cases, but nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly appears critically missing.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all ten parameters, so the schema already explains chat_id, checklist, business_connection_id, and the optional fields. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the 'business account' context, so it meets the baseline without elevating above it.

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 direct action verb and object: 'Send a checklist on behalf of a business account.' It names a distinct message resource (checklist) and adds a scope qualifier, which differentiates it from sibling send* tools without needing to open the schema. The sentence about returning the sent Message clarifies the tool's output at a glance.

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 states a clear operating context: sending must be done 'on behalf of a business account' and is 'Available for business accounts only.' This exclusion tells an agent not to use the tool for non-business sending, and the unique checklist resource implies when it applies, though no sibling alternative is named explicitly.

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