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

The description adds the max transfer limit ($5,000) beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false). However, it does not disclose whether the transfer is reversible, any fees, or confirmation requirements. For a mutation tool, this is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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?

The description is only two sentences, front-loading the core action and then providing context. Every sentence adds value: purpose, use case, and constraint. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters (all documented), an output schema (exists), and no nested objects, the description provides a reasonable amount of context. It covers purpose, use case, and a critical constraint. It does not detail return values or errors, but that is acceptable with an output schema.

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 three parameters. The description adds value by specifying a maximum amount ($5,000) which constrains amount_cents. It does not repeat parameter descriptions from 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 clearly states 'Transfer credits from your wallet to another company' and provides a specific use case ('agent-to-agent settlement'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like wallet.balance, wallet.deposit, and wallet.history by specifying the action and resource.

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 gives a clear context for usage (agent-to-agent settlement, paying subcontractors) and specifies a maximum amount ($5,000). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., payments.send_link). The example partially compensates.

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