initiate_payout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only states the action ('disburse funds') without disclosing side effects, idempotency requirements, or failure modes. The schema includes an idempotencyKey but the description does not highlight it, leaving the agent uninformed about critical behavioral aspects.

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, front-loaded with the action verb, and includes a clarifying parenthetical. Every word contributes; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

The schema fully documents all parameters, which mitigates the lack of detail. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain return format, operational prerequisites, or potential errors. It is a minimal viable description for a 7-parameter mutation tool.

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% for all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, except for implicitly mentioning the 'method' choice via 'mobile money or bank account'.

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+resource combo ('Disburse funds to a mobile money wallet or bank account') and adds context ('seller payouts') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like initiate_payment or refund_payment. It clearly states what the tool does.

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 implies usage for seller payouts, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. There is no reference to sibling tools or scenarios where another tool should be used.

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