wire_treasury_transfer

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

The description discloses key behaviors: it is synthetic (no live bank rail), requires a receipt by default, and missing receipt leads to a logged deny. This is useful transparency, though it does not mention whether the operation is read-only or write, or what effects it has on system state.

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 brief and to the point, using three short sentences. It is well-structured and does not include unnecessary details or redundancy.

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?

While the description gives some operational context (policy, synthetic nature), it omits essential details about parameters, output, and when to use this tool relative to siblings. Given the complexity (7 parameters, nested objects), the description is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly without additional information.

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?

None of the seven parameters (from_account, to_account, amount, currency, confidence, memo, receipt) are explained. The description only mentions the receipt policy but does not describe the receipt object's fields or the meaning of any other parameter. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 identifies the tool as a 'synthetic treasury wire' with a scope, but the verb is implicit and the term 'synthetic' may confuse rather than clarify. It does not explicitly state the action (e.g., 'transfer funds') or the intended use case.

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 some context (requires a human-issued receipt, no live rail, missing receipt results in a logged deny) but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. The guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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