create_b2c_allowance_named

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Creates' (write operation) and 'Returns the API response', but does not disclose important behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, authentication requirements, error handling, or data validation. Minimal transparency for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with key information (action, format, return). However, it is slightly under-specified given the tool's complexity. No unnecessary words, but could include more context without being verbose.

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 tool has 17 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the D0401N format, error scenarios, prerequisites, or the structure of the return response. An agent would lack sufficient context to use this tool correctly in complex workflows.

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% with descriptions for all parameters, so the schema already documents parameter meanings. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what is in the schema. The 'items' parameter has a textual description but no formal schema—still, the description does not elaborate. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (Create a B2C allowance), the specific format (named field format D0401N), and the return (API response). The verb 'Create' and resource 'B2C allowance' are unambiguous. Distinguishes from sibling 'create_b2c_allowance' by specifying format.

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 usage for named field format, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_b2c_allowance'. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided. The format mention gives some context but not enough for an agent to choose correctly without more info.

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