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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful human-legible context beyond them: it moves real funds, cannot be undone, and returns the tx hash plus explorer link; the 'cannot be undone' point partially overlaps the destructive hint but the fund-movement warning is valuable.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by the safety constraint and the return contract; each sentence contributes to correct invocation. Slightly verbose but with no wasted 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 safety-critical transfer with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers intent, risk, and call preconditions. The one remaining gap is not naming the alternative tool for non-native asset transfers, which is minor given the explicit 'native coin' framing.

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%, so all five parameters (including the allBalance flag and amount units) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (send) and resource (native coin of a network) with scope (wallet to address), illustrated by examples (ETH, S, SOL, TON). It implicitly distinguishes itself from transfer_asset via 'native coin', but never names that sibling, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Explicit conditions: call only when the user asked for this exact amount/asset/wallet/recipient/network, never infer/round/top up, and ask instead of guessing when ambiguous. Strong positive and negative guidance, but it does not route the agent to transfer_asset for token transfers, which is the key alternative.

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