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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the token is bearer (a security warning), explains what happens in each mode (verify/record vs. return minting instructions), and states that the endpoint records intent and provides the token. Missing details like potential side effects or idempotency, but it provides substantial behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear heading, two bullet points for modes, a security warning, and a responses section. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 payment tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain return values and edge cases. It lacks specifics about the 200 response body and possible errors. However, it covers the two operational modes and the bearer-token nuance, making it reasonably complete for a simple transfer operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'token' parameter by specifying it is a pre-minted cashu token and notes the optional no-token mode. However, other parameters (sender_agent_id, recipient_agent_id, amount_sats, memo) are not explicitly described, though their names are fairly self-explanatory. Some compensation is made, but not fully.

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 'Send ecash tokens from one agent to another', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like receive_ecash by focusing on the sending action, and the two modes add further clarity on how sending works.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (sending ecash between agents) and explains two modes (with or without a pre-minted token). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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