get_beneficiaries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not explicitly state that it does not modify data, has no side effects, or what permissions are needed. The return type is vaguely described as 'beneficiary designations by plan' but lacks detail on structure, pagination, or error cases.

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: one sentence plus parameter docstrings. Front-loaded with the main purpose. No redundant or filler text. Every part adds value.

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?

For a simple read tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers the inputs adequately. However, it lacks information about output structure (e.g., list vs. single object, fields included), pagination, or any constraints. With no output schema, the description should at least hint at the format of 'beneficiary designations by plan'.

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 has 0% coverage, so description must compensate. It explains employee_id as 'The employee ID (EMPLID)' and plan_type as 'Optional filter by plan type (e.g., '2A' for life insurance)'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's field names and types, though could be more precise (e.g., valid plan types).

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 the tool's action ('Get beneficiary designations') and resource ('benefit plans for an employee'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_benefit_costs' and 'get_benefit_elections' by specifying 'designations'. The verb 'Get' is specific and the resource is 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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'get_benefit_elections' or 'get_dependents'. The description does not mention prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. It only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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