intl_beneficiary_requirements

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

With no annotations, the description alone must convey behavior. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it disclose any side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. The lack of such detail reduces transparency.

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 very concise, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the purpose. It is front-loaded and has no unnecessary words, but could benefit from additional details without becoming overly long.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description does not explain what the returned 'required fields' consist of (e.g., field names, types, formats). This gap makes the tool less complete, as the agent cannot infer the structure of the response.

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% for the single parameter 'id', and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as no extra value is provided.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves required fields for an international beneficiary corridor, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like intl_beneficiary_add or intl_transfer_requirements, which could confuse about its exact role.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as intl_beneficiary_add or intl_transfer_requirements. The description does not include context, exclusions, or suggestions for appropriate use.

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