transfer_funds

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals that preflight performs no funds movement and that transfers honor dryRun/readOnly, which is valuable safety-relevant behavior. It does not mention authentication needs or response details, but adds meaningful context not present in the annotations.

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 and not verbose, but it includes the placeholder '[VERB]' which wastes words and reads as an unfinished template. The sentence structure is tight but the artifact prevents a higher score.

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 tool has 13 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the overall transfer workflow, required fields for each action, return values, error conditions, or account type prerequisites. The preflight note is helpful but insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description doesn't add parameter-level meaning; its mention of preflight and dryRun relates to behaviors already covered by the schema. No extra semantics are provided.

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 tool moves funds and enumerates the three action intents (internal, mainToSub, subToMain), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like withdraw or deposit. However, the literal '[VERB]' placeholder is an artifact that slightly detracts from professionalism, so it’s a strong but not perfect purpose statement.

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 by listing the three action types and mentions preflight for checking without transferring. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like withdraw/deposit for external moves, nor does it state when not to use this tool. Guidance is present but implicit.

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