submit_entitlement_requirements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that documents must be base64-encoded and that submission is partial (only missing fields), which is genuinely behavioral. It omits idempotency (can it be re-called?), permission/auth requirements, whether resubmitted fields overwrite prior data, and what happens on an incomplete submission.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by field-format and encoding rules; nothing is wasted. The parenthetical example list is long but each example earns its place by disambiguating the free-form requirements object.

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?

The requirements parameter is an open free-form object (additionalProperties: {}), yet the description only gives 'e.g.' examples rather than the full set of accepted keys, leaving the agent uncertain about valid field names. With no annotations and no output schema, there is also no signal about auth needs or the response on success/failure, though the base64 and partial-submission notes do cover the most critical call-shaping details.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes modestly beyond the schema by giving concrete requirement key examples (tax_id_number, financial_profile, id_documents, proof_of_address_documents) and the base64 encoding rule for document fields, which the schema does not state. It restates the snake_case convention already present in the schema, so the gain is incremental rather than substantial.

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: sending further verification data for a requested entitlement, with a nod to the entitlement-request flow ('Stables asked for'). It distinguishes from generic siblings like update_customer, though it never explicitly names which sibling (request_entitlements, submit_rfi_evidence) precedes it or how it differs from submit_rfi_evidence.

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?

'Send only what is missing' is a real usage constraint and implies this follows an entitlement request that came back with outstanding requirements. However, it never states when to use this versus submit_rfi_evidence or update_customer, nor any prerequisite (e.g. that a request_entitlements call must have flagged missing fields).

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