beneficiary_trust

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

Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly explains the SCA behavior: inline polling with default wait, fallback to pending response, and how to resume with sca_session_show/sca_session_token. Also discloses the OAuth scope requirement and 403 for unauthorized apps.

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, concise but dense. The first sentence combines scope requirement and SCA info, which is a bit heavy. Still, every word adds value; no filler.

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?

Covers OAuth prerequisites, SCA flow, and fallback. Missing output description, but the structured pending response is hinted. For a tool with no output schema, this is adequate for an agent to understand the flow.

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?

Adds significant value beyond the input schema: explains the wait parameter's default (30s), range (0-120), and behavior (false for pure two-step). Clarifies sca_session_token usage for binding prior SCA approval. Schema coverage is 100% but description enriches parameter understanding.

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 the specific verb 'Trust' and resource 'SEPA beneficiaries', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like beneficiary_untrust. It also notes the OAuth scope requirement, making the purpose precise.

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?

Explicitly states the tool is only for embed-partner apps with a specific scope, and that standard apps get 403. Implicitly differentiates from beneficiary_untrust. Could be improved by explicitly stating when to use this instead of other beneficiary tools.

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