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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose a real behavioral trait: no bank transaction is created and no regular account is affected. It does not cover permissions needed, reversibility/undo path (e.g. delete_investment_transaction), or error behavior, which a mutation tool ideally should.

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?

Two tight sentences with the primary behavior first and the routing rule second; every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and sibling routing well. It omits any note on required permissions, validation failures, or how to reverse the entry, leaving a small gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters (including the enum on type and the isAdjustment flag) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the 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 precise verb and resource ('Record a direct cash deposit into or withdrawal from an investment portfolio') and scopes it negatively ('without touching any regular account'). An agent can distinguish it from the transfer siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternatives (transfer_account_to_portfolio / transfer_portfolio_to_account) and the condition that selects them ('when the money moves to or from a tracked account'). This is exactly the when-to-use/when-not guidance the dimension rewards.

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