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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that authentication is required the first time and that only currently working networks are returned alongside their fees.

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 two sentences and reasonably front-loaded, though the authentication prerequisite appears before the actual purpose. It avoids unnecessary repetition and stays focused on eligibility and returned data.

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?

With one simple parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return content, including network code, name, fees, and current availability. It also covers the authentication requirement, 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 description coverage is 100%, and the single enum parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that the query is for a country, adding little semantic detail beyond what the schema already 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 clearly states the resource: Mobile Money networks that can receive a withdrawal in a given country, including their fees and current operational status. It goes beyond the title by specifying the returned fields, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from action-oriented siblings such as retirer_mobile_money.

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 mentions that the user must be connected to a Tchin account, but this is an eligibility prerequisite rather than guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not name retirer_mobile_money or explain that this tool should be used to discover networks before initiating a withdrawal.

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