get_beneficiary

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Returns detailed information', but does not mention that the operation is read-only, what happens if the UUID is invalid (e.g., error or null), or any authorization requirements. The minimal description leaves significant uncertainty about behavior.

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, concise and front-loaded. However, it is perhaps too sparse; additional context could be added without harming conciseness. It earns a 4 for efficiency but loses a point for under-specification.

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's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes or how to handle errors (e.g., non-existent UUID). A more complete description would list typical response fields or error scenarios.

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 one parameter 'uuid' with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate – the description does not improve parameter understanding but also does not detract.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('detailed information about a specific beneficiary'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_beneficiaries (which returns a list) and create/delete/update. However, it does not explicitly mention that the beneficiary is identified by a UUID, though the schema makes that clear.

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 vs alternatives. For example, it doesn't indicate that this should be used when you have a specific beneficiary's UUID, or that list_beneficiaries is for browsing. The description lacks any usage context or exclusions.

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