request_agent_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the target receives an approval email, but does not explain whether the transaction executes immediately, how to track the request, or what happens on approval/rejection. Some important behavioral details are missing.

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 succinct sentence that clearly states the purpose and the key consequence. No unnecessary words are present.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is somewhat sparse. It states the approval email behavior but does not indicate what the requester receives (e.g., a request ID) or how to follow up. The rich parameter schema compensates partially, making this adequate but not 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 input schema provides 100% parameter coverage, so the description does not need to elaborate on each parameter. The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is descriptive (e.g., reason is 'Human-readable reason shown in approval email'). Baseline 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 specifies the action 'Request a transaction on behalf of another user' with a clear verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like transfer_tokens or swap_currency by indicating an approval workflow ('They will receive an email to approve').

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 provides clear context: this is for requesting a transaction on behalf of someone else, implying it should be used when the target user must approve. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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