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

With only openWorldHint: false and destructiveHint: false in annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and delivers: it discloses the write is intention-only, that no funds are transferred by any part of Lovie today, and instructs the agent never to claim the deposit was sent. This goes well beyond what the annotations convey about side effects and user-facing truthfulness. No contradiction with annotations exists — a non-destructive, closed-world intent recording aligns with destructiveHint: false and openWorldHint: false.

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 sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence earns its place by clarifying the non-transfer behavior and a critical communication constraint; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 description fully covers what the tool does, what it does not do, and the key user-communication rule, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. The main residual gap is the semantics and optionality of amount and currencyCode, which are not addressed in the description.

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 only 33%, and the sole parameter description is the thin 'UUID value wrapper' for applicationId. The tool description does not compensate: it never states that amount represents the deposit value, that it is actually optional despite only applicationId being required, or that currencyCode is an optional ISO code. An agent must infer the meaning of amount and currencyCode from pattern constraints in the schema.

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 names a specific verb, 'Records,' and a specific resource, the opening deposit a founder chose for their banking application. It immediately clarifies scope by stating it 'stores an intention only' and that no money moves, which distinguishes it from the many money-movement siblings (commit_transfer, draft_payment, autonomous_pay).

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 sets clear context, indicating this is the step that records the founder's deposit choice as an intention, and explicitly states the tool does not move money. It lacks explicit naming of alternatives such as banking_get_initial_transfer_preview or commit_transfer, so guidance is contextual rather than directive. The 'Never tell the user their deposit has been sent' line adds a useful behavioral boundary.

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