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 the entire balance is converted, requires gas fees, and ZAR stays until wallet_transfer. This covers key behavioral traits, though it doesn't mention reversibility or side effects beyond transfer.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose paragraph followed by a parameter list. It is concise enough while covering necessary details, though the parameter list adds length. Front-loading of purpose is effective.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers purpose, usage, prerequisites, parameters, and return format (JSON with 'values' object). It is sufficiently complete, especially since an output schema exists and the description doesn't need to detail return values.

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%, but the description provides explanations for all 4 parameters: wallet_fk, account_fk, pin, and stable_coin with options. It adds meaning beyond the schema, though there's a minor inconsistency (description mentions EURC but param options say only usdc/usdt).

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 the tool converts stablecoins (USDC, EURC, USDT) to ZAR in a Netfluid wallet, distinguishing it from sibling tools like wallet_transfer. The verb 'converts' and resource 'stable coins to ZAR' are specific, and the scope 'entire balance across all accounts' is explicit.

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 explicitly says when to use ('convert the entire USDC, EURC or USDT balance') and provides a prerequisite (min ZAR 5.00 or crypto for gas fees). It lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool references but gives sufficient context for correct use.

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