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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: server-held draft, single-use draft_id, no money movement, trusted-device requirement, and the side effect that sealing closes earlier open drafts and pending phone approvals. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before invoking a mutation-like tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return value. Every sentence contributes useful information about safety, prerequisites, or side effects.

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?

Covers the key behavioral context and prerequisites well, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The main gap is parameter-level guidance for an 8-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It mentions amount, recipient, and rail only indirectly, and does not explain companyId, sourceAccountId, destinationAccountId, serviceLevel, or memo, leaving most of the 8 parameters undocumented.

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: seal a transfer as a server-held draft and return a draft_id. It also clarifies that no money moves, which distinguishes it from commit_transfer and other execution-oriented transfer tools.

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?

Gives clear usage context: registered recipient, active trusted device, and draft-only behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as commit_transfer or request_transfer_approval, but the draft/no-money framing makes the intended use clear.

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