List outgoing transfers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. The verb 'List' signals a non-destructive read operation, and the description states the output fields. It does not mention pagination, ordering, transfer status filtering, or permission requirements, but these are moderate gaps for a simple read-only list 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 a single sentence that front-loads the operation, scope, and return fields with no filler. Every word contributes value.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what is listed and the shape of each result. It could mention pagination or all transfer statuses, and it does not point to the incoming-transfer sibling, but the schema fully documents the only input.

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 schema has 100% coverage and the parameter description already explains that licenseNumber may be omitted to default to METRC_LICENSE_NUMBER. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('outgoing transfers for a facility') and names the returned fields: manifest number, recipient, and package count. The word 'outgoing' clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tool list_incoming_transfers.

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 phrase 'for a facility' implies the tool should be used when outgoing transfer data for a facility is needed. However, it does not explicitly direct the agent to list_incoming_transfers for the opposite case, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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