addressee_block

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral: it does not say whether a missing name_ar/title_ar falls back to the English value, whether output is plain text or structured lines, or how honorific/name ordering is assembled. With an output schema present, return format is excused, but the Arabic-fallback question is a real gap.

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?

A single eleven-word sentence with the resource and locale front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves gaps that belong in the other dimensions.

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?

Annotations and a full-coverage schema plus an output schema mean basic callability is fine. For a 7-parameter composition tool, though, the description leaves open how the optional Arabic halves interact with the required English name, which is exactly the kind of guidance a composition tool needs.

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% and every one of the seven properties carries a description (including the pointer to list_honorifics), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond that — nothing about pairing rules between name/name_ar or title/title_ar.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Build a bilingual addressee block") and scopes it to "a UAE business letter," which is far more concrete than the bare tool name. It stops short of naming how it differs from nearby siblings like business_letter_template or list_honorifics, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 phrase "for a UAE business letter" implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no indication of when to prefer business_letter_template instead, and no note that list_honorifics should be consulted for the honorific id (that hint lives only in the schema).

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