verify_beneficiary

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'verifies', implying a read operation, but does not mention side effects, what the verification entails (e.g., checks bank account existence, format), or any external calls. Lacks essential behavioral details.

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 short (one sentence), but for a tool with 6 parameters and no other guides, it is too terse. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it harder for the agent to use correctly.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It lacks information on return values, error conditions, and parameter usage, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 low (17%), and the description adds no meaning to parameters. It does not explain how to use uuid, account_number, sort_code, iban, bank_account_country, or currency. The agent must guess their roles, which is insufficient.

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's purpose: verifying a beneficiary bank account, with a specific example (CoP check in the UK). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create_beneficiary and validate_beneficiary.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when to choose verify_beneficiary versus validate_beneficiary, or any prerequisites.

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