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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions it is a signed transaction from the server's signer, indicating a write operation, but lacks details on gas costs, error handling, or transaction finality. While adequate, it could be more explicit.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no superfluous information. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., transaction hash), leaving the agent uninformed about the result of the submission. Completeness is lacking for a write operation.

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?

The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that decimals are auto-fetched and how to skip scaling via 'unit: base'. For the 'amount' parameter, it reinforces the default unit behavior. This clarifies usage beyond the schema's enum and defaults.

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 the tool submits a signed ERC20.transfer(to, amount) from the server's signer, specifying the verb 'sends' and resource 'ERC-20', which distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like fuse_send_native or fuse_smart_transfer_token.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for native tokens use fuse_send_native). It only provides guidance on the 'unit' parameter, missing context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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