generate_broker_notification

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of revealing behavioral traits. It clarifies that the output notification is comprehensive, including 'détails du sinistre, la décision de traitement et les actions requises', giving the agent insight into the complexity and content of the generated document.

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 two sentences are highly efficient. The first sentence serves as a high-level purpose statement, and the second details the required contents of the resulting notification.

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?

Because this tool generates a complex document with no defined output schema, the description is crucial. It is complete enough for the agent to know that the resulting artifact is a formal, actionable notification rather than a simple data summary.

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?

Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is high. The description doesn't need to explain the nested fields, but it contextualizes the two required inputs (`claimData` and `classification`) as the foundational data sources for the final notification.

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 purpose: generating a formal broker notification after a claim classification. While the tool's name implies the action, the description specifically defines the resource being generated (a formal notification).

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 description strongly implies the use case by referencing the required steps: 'suite à la classification d'un sinistre automobile' (following the classification of an automobile claim). The schema descriptions further link this tool to the output of 'analyze_claim_report' and 'classify_claim_severity'.

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