request_account_freeze

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key trait: human approval is always required, implying the request is not immediately executed. However, it does not disclose what happens after approval, whether it is asynchronous, what the response will be, or any side effects. Partial disclosure is better than nothing, but gaps remain.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and impact; the second adds the critical policy constraint. Every word earns its place and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 three required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a high-impact action, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain parameter semantics, expected outcomes, or how to handle approval delays. An agent would need additional documentation or inference to use this tool correctly in a real flow.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description provides no parameter explanations. The parameter names (account_id, reason, idempotency_key) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds zero meaning beyond the raw names. For a tool with three required parameters, the description should at least hint at their purpose, especially the idempotency key's role in preventing duplicate requests.

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 a specific verb ('request') and resource ('account freeze') and adds 'high-impact' to convey significance. It inherently distinguishes itself from the read-only sibling tools (get_case, get_account_summary) by being an action that modifies state.

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, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It mentions human approval is required, but that is a policy constraint, not a usage guide. An agent must infer that this tool is for freezing accounts, but there is no explicit comparison to sibling tools.

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