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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: authentication requirements, email delivery, recipient self-withdrawal, payment from the user's balance, test mode creating the link immediately without real money, and real mode preparing a request that does nothing immediately until the user confirms with their Tchin PIN within 15 minutes. It also specifies the follow-up call to etat_demande.

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 front-loaded with the account context and purpose, then moves through test versus real behavior and the required follow-up. Despite its length, every sentence carries operational meaning for correctly invoking or interpreting the tool.

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 non-read-only creation tool with no output schema, the description covers authentication, test versus real semantics, the PIN confirmation flow, and the follow-up tool. It is nearly complete, though it does not explicitly say what is returned in test mode and leaves some parameter semantics to the schema.

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 25%, so the description must compensate. It explains the important test=true behavior and clarifies that the recipient receives an email and withdraws via Mobile Money or crypto, but it does not add meaning for several parameters such as devise, titre, message, or pays beyond what the schema enums and names 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it creates a withdrawal link where the recipient receives an email and withdraws Mobile Money or crypto from the user's balance. It also differentiates the link-based flow from immediate withdrawal by explaining that the recipient acts themselves, and it names the follow-up tool etat_demande.

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?

It gives clear usage context: the user must be connected to their Tchin account, merchant or individual, and first-time connection is required. It also explains the test versus real mode and instructs the agent to call etat_demande afterwards, though it does not explicitly compare this tool with alternatives such as retirer_mobile_money.

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