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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context: matches are limited to the org's own connected banks, must be outflow-plus-inflow pairs, and the endpoint excludes auto-booked same-currency high-confidence matches. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide without contradicting them.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: core return semantics, the matching criteria, the two follow-up actions, and the exclusion of auto-booked pairs. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids filler or repetition of schema details.

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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool with a full output schema and clear annotations, this description is complete. It tells the agent what the list contains, what is excluded, what to do with the results, and which sibling tools are relevant. No essential selection or invocation information is missing.

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?

The only parameter, org_id, is fully documented in the schema with its default behavior and validation requirement. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to compensate, and the baseline of 3 applies. The main tool description adds no additional parameter-level information, but none is needed.

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 identifies a specific operation: returning inter-bank transfer matches awaiting confirmation, and clarifies the exact shape of those matches (outflow on one org-owned bank plus inflow on another). It distinguishes this read-only listing from the related confirm_transfer and reject_transfer actions and from auto-booked high-confidence pairs, so an agent can accurately separate it from siblings.

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 clearly frames when this tool is relevant: the ambiguous set that needs human confirmation, with high-confidence same-currency pairs explicitly excluded. It also directs the agent to confirm_transfer and reject_transfer as follow-ups. It does not explicitly name alternative listing tools such as get_pending_by_counterparty or get_unreviewed_events, so it stops short of a full 5.

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