create_beneficiary_email_request

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool sends an email but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether a request record is created), idempotency, or required permissions. The description is too minimal for safe invocation.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple tool and full schema coverage, the description provides the core action. However, it omits critical context such as whether the beneficiary must exist prior to sending, what the response contains (e.g., request ID), and whether this is a one-time email or creates a pending beneficiary record.

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 each parameter is documented. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate per scoring rules.

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 it sends an email to a beneficiary requesting bank account details, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_beneficiary (which creates a beneficiary) and update_beneficiary_email_request (which modifies requests).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_beneficiary or validate_beneficiary. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the beneficiary must already exist) or scenarios where this tool should be avoided.

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