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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, and the description goes further: it discloses the exact returned fields, that approval_session_id is empty until phone approval is requested, that rejected drafts remain listed until expiry, and that it 'Moves no money.' That last clause is genuinely useful disambiguation against nearby transfer tools.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and filter conditions, then usage context, then a safety note. Roughly three dense sentences with little waste, though the approval-status sentence and the field enumeration could be tightened slightly.

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?

An output schema exists, so field-level explanation is a bonus rather than a requirement, and the description still adds semantics (empty approval_session_id meaning, rejected drafts lingering). The only real hole is the undocumented companyId parameter.

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?

There is one parameter, companyId, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — not whether it's optional, not whether the user's default company is used. 'this user' hints at scoping but does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource with precise scope: 'List the ids of the transfer drafts this user sealed that are neither spent nor expired, newest first.' The filter conditions and ordering distinguish it from generic listing siblings, and the returned fields are enumerated.

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 says when to use it — when draft or approval ids are not at hand, e.g. the user says they approved on their phone — and warns to read approval status before acting on a rejected-but-listed draft. It stops short of naming the alternative tools (request_transfer_approval, commit_transfer) or stating when not to use it.

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