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

The description adds essential behavior beyond the annotations: it does not move money immediately, it prepares a request and returns a tchin.tech URL where the user confirms with their Tchin PIN, and the confirmation window is 15 minutes. This is exactly the kind of side-effect and confirmation-flow detail an agent needs before calling the tool.

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 actor and operation, then immediately highlights the critical non-immediate behavior before stating the follow-up tool. Every sentence carries useful information, including the authentication context and the 15-minute confirmation window.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns in practice: a request-preparation URL for the user to confirm. It also covers authentication requirements, the confirmation mechanism, timing, and the required follow-up call, leaving no major gap for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the three parameters, including country codes and amount in F CFA. The description reinforces the concept of two country balances but does not add format or validation detail beyond what the schema provides.

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: moving money between the user's own country balances. The example 'du Bénin vers le Togo' makes the scope concrete and implicitly distinguishes it from sending money to a third party via envoyer_argent.

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 clearly states the context: the connected Tchin user, merchant or individual, moving funds between their own country balances. It also gives the crucial next step 'Ensuite, appelez etat_demande', but it does not explicitly explain when to use this instead of sibling tools such as envoyer_argent.

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