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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers genuinely non-obvious behavior: the deposit reference is critical for routing, incoming funds are auto-converted to USDC, and a further conversion step is required before a transfer. It omits failure modes, idempotency, and rate/permission limits, keeping it out of the top band.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then behavioral warnings, then param docs – a sensible order with little waste. The routing remark and the @return line are slightly redundant given the parameter block format, but overall it is tight.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, parameter meaning (including the account_fk default), conversion behavior, and the return container ("values"). It is close to complete for a 3-param funding tool, missing only error/edge-case behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all three parameters including the non-obvious special case that account_fk=0 selects the first available account and that account_fk is a database key, not an address. It adds no type or format detail, but the semantic clarification of the default value is strong.

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 specific verb and resource: returns SEPA and US ACH/Wire virtual bank account funding options. It names the concrete rails (SEPA, ACH/Wire) which helps distinguish it from generic siblings like customer_netfluid_fund_options. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it does not reach a 5.

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 embeds workflow context – funds are auto-converted to USDC and a further sell step is needed before wallet_transfer – which implies where this fits in a sequence. It never states when to choose this over customer_netfluid_fund_blockchain or customer_netfluid_fund_options, nor any prerequisites beyond the pin.

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