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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false), it discloses key behavioral traits: the call only creates a pending request, returns a tchin.tech URL, requires the user to confirm with a Tchin PIN, and expires in 15 minutes. It also names the applicable fee schedule.

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 critical 'NE FAIT RIEN TOUT DE SUITE' caveat and the next-step pointer are front-loaded and every sentence carries information. It is dense and slightly run-on, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Without an output schema, the description still explains what is returned (a confirmation URL) and the follow-up tool (etat_demande), plus auth and timing constraints. Only the unexplained 'vers' parameter and vague fee reference keep it from being 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?

The description adds real meaning beyond the schema: tchin_id is the recipient's Tchin ID (with an example like boutique@tchin), and the source is the user's country balance, with fee context for montant. The optional 'vers' parameter is never explained in the description, which is a minor gap given 75% schema coverage.

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 concrete verb and resource (sending money from the user's country balance to another person's Tchin account via tchin_id) and adds scope detail like fee type. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar sibling preparer_demande_tchin, leaving some ambiguity about which one to pick.

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 states the preconditions (logged-in user, merchant or individual, first-time connection) and, crucially, that no transfer happens immediately and that the agent should then call etat_demande. It does not explain when to prefer this over preparer_demande_tchin, which is the main missing piece.

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