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 reveals that the transaction is submitted from the server's signer (a key behavior) and that decimals are auto-fetched. It does not detail potential failure modes (e.g., insufficient balance) or return behavior, but the disclosed traits are significant and accurate.

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 sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and mechanism in the first sentence, and then immediately providing actionable parameter guidance in the second. Every clause earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: action, signing party, token decimals, and unit option. It lacks details on return value (transaction hash? receipt?) which might be relevant for an outputless tool, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema covers 75% of parameters with descriptions (to, amount, tokenAddress). The description adds value by explaining the auto-decimal feature and the effect of the unit parameter ('skip scaling'), which supplements the schema's description of amount and unit. This added semantic context helps agents understand scaling behavior.

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 from the server's signer, specifying the exact operation and actor. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fuse_send_native (native token) and fuse_smart_transfer_token (smart wallet), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for using the unit parameter ('use unit: base to skip scaling'), guiding the agent on when to adjust units. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like fuse_send_native or fuse_smart_transfer_token, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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