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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one non-obvious safety behavior: a required preview step via emit_display before execution. It fails to state whether the call itself moves money irreversibly, whether a PIN is required at execution, or what error/rollback behavior looks like for a high-stakes financial mutation.

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, then prefill guidance, then the mandatory preview constraint. Nothing is padded, though "when possible" is slightly vague about the fallback path.

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?

This is a money-movement tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must do more. It references `emit_display`, which does not appear in the sibling tool list and is never explained (is it a separate tool? a flag?), and omits required prerequisites, PIN timing, and confirmation of what a successful call returns.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters including amount units and PIN. The only added meaning is that the beneficiary account number can be prefilled from session, which is marginal beyond the schema baseline.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Create a bank payout/transfer") tells an agent this moves money to a bank account. However, the phrase "payout/transfer" overlaps with the sibling tool `bank_transfer`, and the description never distinguishes the two, leaving the agent to guess which one to call.

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?

"Always emit_display preview before running" gives a real procedural precondition, and prefill guidance is stated. But there is no when-to-use vs `bank_transfer`, no mention of prerequisites (KYC status, resolved beneficiary via `resolve_bank_account`), and no exclusions.

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