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

The description discloses that the tool submits a signed transaction (implying irreversible transfer) and returns a transaction hash. No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or the need for the server signer to have sufficient balance.

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 one clear sentence plus a helpful follow-up instruction. It is concise, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler.

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?

For a simple transaction tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the main purpose, return value, and next steps. Could briefly note that the server signer must have sufficient funds, but overall it's sufficiently complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra value by restating default unit behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (submits a signed transaction), resource (native FUSE), and action (transferring to a recipient). It distinguishes from siblings like fuse_send_erc20 and fuse_get_receipt, which handle different operations.

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 specifies when to use the tool (to send native FUSE) and provides a post-action recommendation (use fuse_get_receipt to confirm inclusion). However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or suggest alternative tools for different scenarios.

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