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

The description discloses that the tool saves a verified account as the payout destination, which implies a write operation (consistent with readOnlyHint=false) and is idempotent (matches idempotentHint=true). It provides context beyond annotations by specifying the account must be verified and the destination purpose, but does not detail other side effects like overwriting existing payout settings.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the tool's action and providing usage guidance. No redundant information, and critical details are front-loaded.

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 save operation, the description covers the main action and prerequisite. However, it lacks information about return values or error states (no output schema), and could briefly address what happens if the account already exists (idempotency implies safe retry, but not explicitly stated). Overall, it is nearly complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 already has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all four parameters. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates that these are for a verified bank account. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Save a verified bank account') and the purpose ('as the organization's payout destination'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'neuron_verify_bank_account' by noting the prerequisite, making the tool's role 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 explicitly instructs to verify the account first using 'neuron_verify_bank_account', providing a clear prerequisite and sequential guidance. However, it does not discuss when not to use this tool or compare with other payout-related siblings like 'neuron_get_bank_account' or 'neuron_request_payout'.

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