prepare_payout

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it clarifies that despite readOnlyHint=false nothing moves funds, and 'repeated calls create separate quotes' explains the non-idempotent behavior in practical terms. Currency semantics (NGN = exact receive, USDC = max total spend incl. fees) is behavior an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the safety-critical 'no funds move' claim front-loaded. No filler.

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?

Covers the essential behaviors for a quote tool (no fund movement, currency meaning, bank defaults, non-idempotency). It stops short of describing the quote's lifecycle or expiry, which matters given there is no output 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?

With only 33% schema coverage, the description carries needed weight: it defines currency semantics precisely and explains when to omit bank (defaults to saved). Amount format is left to the schema, which already covers it well.

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?

States a specific action ('Prepare a quote') and immediately scopes it ('no funds move'), which cleanly separates it from execute_payout among the siblings. An agent can tell this is a quote-creation step, not a transfer.

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?

Gives concrete routing rules: default to the saved bank, supply a bank only when the user explicitly asks for another destination, and warns that repeated calls make separate quotes. It never explicitly names execute_payout as the follow-up step, which is the one missing link.

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