isw_agency_banking_cashout

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It labels the operation as 'high-risk' and states 'requires confirm: true,' which is important but omits details like side effects, authentication needs, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a high-risk financial tool.

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?

Extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately follow with critical risk and confirmation info. No wasted words.

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?

For a high-risk operation with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks explanations for most parameters, return values, and operational semantics, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it reiterates that confirm must be true (already in schema). With schema coverage at 38%, the description does not explain the many undocumented parameters (e.g., agentCode, transactionRef), failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 core function: 'Perform agency banking cashout.' It specifies the action (perform) and resource (agency banking cashout), but does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'isw_agency_cashout_xml' which likely serves a similar purpose via XML.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like isw_agency_cashout_xml or other cashout-related tools. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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