jis_send_verified

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and a prerequisite, but fails to explain what 'verified' entails, potential side effects, error conditions, or asynchronous behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool that performs a secured operation.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, both front-loaded. Every sentence provides necessary information without any extraneous text.

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 that there is no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining what the tool returns or error behaviors. It does not mention return values, success indicators, or failure modes. The prerequisite is mentioned but overall completeness is low for a tool with several siblings and a sensitive operation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema for parameters 'to', 'message', or 'purpose' (which has a default). No extra context is provided for values or constraints.

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 'Send a JIS-verified message' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'jis_request_intent' by noting the prerequisite of bilateral intent acceptance, which implies a specific sequence.

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 explicitly states a precondition: 'Requires bilateral intent acceptance first.' This guides the agent to use this tool only after intent is established, though it does not explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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