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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a credit-moving mutation, that it costs 1 unit, and that authentication uses the workspace key in _meta. It does not explain failure modes, reversibility, permission requirements, or what happens if the workspace balance is insufficient.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by cost and authentication. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, cost, and auth but omits important context such as balance requirements, failure behavior, and output expectations. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate, but it largely repeats the api_key authentication detail already present in the schema. It adds no meaningful guidance for agent_id or amount beyond what the schema's pattern and minimum already provide.

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: 'Move credits from the workspace issuer to an agent's own account.' It also explains the downstream purpose ('so record_usage can burn them'), which distinguishes it from sibling credit tools like top_up_workspace and record_usage.

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 gives clear context for when to use it by linking the operation to record_usage burning credits, and it notes the cost of 1 unit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended use case is clear.

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