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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that confirmation is required before executing and that proceeds land in FIAT balance. However, it does not mention fees, minimums, reversibility, or how confirmation is supplied, leaving significant behavioral aspects opaque.

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 purpose sentence is duplicated verbatim, wasting space and indicating poor editing. The structure mixes a repeated opening with param docs, but the redundancy and lack of formatting reduce clarity and efficiency.

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?

The tool is a financial transaction with 5 required params and no annotation support, yet the description only says '@return: a json object' and doesn't explain confirmation flow, error cases, or fee implications. Sibling tools like account_buy and account_swap suggest a family of trading actions, but the description lacks enough context to fully grasp what to expect when invoking this tool.

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 descriptions cover 0% of parameters, so the @param lines are the only source of meaning. They provide basic definitions for all five params, and account_fk gets a critical clarification (database ID not address, cannot be 0). Other params like amount lack unit specificity, and token/api_key are only lightly described.

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') and resource ('digital asset'), with a clear outcome ('returns proceeds to FIAT balance'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like account_buy and account_swap, and the confirmation note adds operational clarity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as account_buy or account_swap. The description implies a selling use case but doesn't state prerequisites, exclusions, or scenario-specific guidance. The 'Confirm (yes/no)' note is procedural, not usage direction.

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