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

The description adds value beyond annotations: it reveals the async nature (returns a confirm_code), security model (on-chain verification, only vault owner can authorize), and supported tokens (USDC, WETH). No contradiction with annotations (destructiveHint=true is consistent with a transfer).

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 sentences: first states core function, second covers prerequisite and outcome, third explains verification. Every sentence carries weight, front-loaded with the most important action.

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?

Without output schema, the description specifies the return (confirm_code) and mentions supported tokens. It could add failure modes or rate limits, but for a 4-parameter tool, this is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds meaningful context: the vault requirement and the confirm_code flow, which are not in the schema. It clarifies that the transfer is on Base Mainnet (not a parameter) and that both parties need a vault.

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 (queue), resource (vault-to-vault token transfer), and scope (to another GitHub user on Base Mainnet). It differentiates from siblings by specifying a transfer between vaults, contrasting with other request_* tools like request_deposit or request_swap.

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 explicit prerequisites (both sender and recipient must have a Gitbank vault) and outlines the authorization process (post confirm_code on GitHub). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context of vault-to-vault transfers makes the usage clear.

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