onboard_business_rep

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses three main actions (create, generate link, submit verification) but does not detail side effects, idempotency, or failure modes. Adequate but not detailed.

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?

Three sentences: first states purpose and steps, second lists required fields, third lists optional. No fluff, easy to parse. Could be slightly more structured but is concise.

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 10 parameters, nested address object, and output schema present, the description covers core functionality and required inputs. It does not explain the verification link outcome or error conditions, but is sufficient for basic usage.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It lists required and optional parameters and adds context (e.g., customer_id must be business customer, address as object). However, it does not elaborate on formats or constraints for fields like date_of_birth or phone.

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 creates and verifies a business representative, listing the three-step process (create, generate verification link, submit verification). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'onboard_customer' and 'verify_customer' by specifying it's for a business customer's representative.

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 clear context: it requires a customer_id that must be a business customer, and lists required and optional fields. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the purpose implies the use case.

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