initiate_deposit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and a prerequisite, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether funds are moved immediately), return behavior, idempotency, or error conditions. For a money-movement tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The verb and object are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable and effective.

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?

Despite having five parameters and no output schema, the description omits critical context: what happens after initiation, how to check status, potential side effects, and any prerequisites beyond KYC. The tool is under-specified for an agent to use it safely and effectively.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all five parameters (100% coverage), so the schema already carries the semantic load. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema, meriting the baseline score of 3.

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 action ('Initiate') and the resource ('a fiat deposit via Brale'), distinguishing it from related tools like request_withdrawal. The KYC requirement adds a specific precondition that sharpens the purpose.

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 a key prerequisite ('Requires verified KYC'), which is a form of usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., transfer_tokens or request_withdrawal) or when not to use it.

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