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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this is a confirmation-gated trade that credits proceeds to FIAT, but says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions beyond the auth params, failure modes, or rate limits.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the opening sentence is duplicated verbatim and the JSDoc @param tags largely restate parameter names, adding bulk without new meaning.

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 financial mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, confirmation, and all params, but leaves the return value ('a json object') unelaborated and omits safety/mutation details an agent would need to invoke it reliably.

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, and it does document all five parameters. The note that account_fk is a database integer ID (not an address) and may not be 0 is genuinely valuable beyond the schema, though several params (amount, digital_asset_fk) are only minimally restated.

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 states a specific verb (sells), resource (a digital asset), and outcome (proceeds to the account's FIAT balance), which naturally distinguishes it from siblings like account_buy and account_swap. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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 only usage directive is 'Confirm (yes/no) before executing', which tells the agent a confirmation step is required but gives no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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