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

Annotations only say destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the pending-approval failure mode (step_up_required), the surprising side effect that a rejected commit still spends the draft, and the one-shot consumption semantics requiring a fresh draft and approval to retry.

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?

Short, front-loaded, and every sentence adds a distinct operational fact — gate condition, failure behavior, and consumption/recovery rule. No filler or restated schema.

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 destructive, irreversible money-movement tool, the description covers the precondition, the error path, the side effect of failure, and recovery. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.

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 0% with three required-by-pattern UUID parameters, so the description carries the burden. It ties approval_session_id to the approval gate, adding real meaning for that parameter, but draftId and companyId receive no explanation of origin or relationship to the draft/company context.

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?

States a specific verb ('Execute', 'Moves money') and resource ('sealed draft'), and its phrasing clearly separates it from mcp_draft_transfer and request_transfer_approval in the sibling list. An agent can tell this is the terminal money-moving step of the transfer workflow.

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?

Explicitly names the precondition ('Call ONLY after approval_session_get_approval_session_status returned APPROVED') and names the sibling that produces that signal. It also states the negative case — committing while approval is pending — which is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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