business_letter_template

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world generator, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact - that the output is a template with side-by-side EN/AR blocks the LLM must fill in - but says nothing about determinism of the placeholders, validation of honorific ids, or behavior on unusual inputs.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose statement and with no filler. The final sentence about UAE formal correspondence conventions is slightly soft but does establish the stylistic basis of the output.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and 100% schema coverage handles the parameters. What is missing is integration context: the description never tells the agent that honorific ids should come from list_honorifics or how this tool relates to addressee_block and list_salutations.

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 all nine parameters are already documented in the schema (opening/closing styles, honorific ids, sender placeholders, optional subject_ar). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema - for example, it never links the 'honorific' parameter to the list_honorifics sibling that supplies valid ids. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 UAE business letter template (English + Arabic)', which is concrete and distinguishable from data-lookup siblings like list_honorifics or addressee_block. It does not, however, explicitly name or differentiate itself from those closely related sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The presence of sibling tools such as list_honorifics (which supplies the honorific ids this tool accepts) and addressee_block makes the absence of routing guidance a real gap.

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