addressee_block

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

The description provides no behavioral details beyond the basic purpose. It does not disclose how the bilingual block is constructed (e.g., English and Arabic formatting), what the output looks like, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, which it does not fulfill.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. There is no redundant or extraneous information; every word contributes to clarity.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, bilingual requirement) and the existence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how bilingual inputs are handled, what constitutes a valid addressee block, or any edge cases. The output schema may cover return format, but the description lacks necessary context for correct 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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter description adds meaning (e.g., 'honorific' references list_honorifics). The tool description itself does not add extra semantics beyond the schema. Baseline for high coverage is 3, and there is no significant additional value from the description.

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 'Build a bilingual addressee block for a UAE business letter' clearly states the action (build), the resource (addressee block), and the context (bilingual, UAE business letter). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'business_letter_template' which likely handles the full letter, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'business_letter_template' that might be more appropriate for building a complete letter. Usage context is implied but not clarified.

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