isw_confirm_debit_sufficient

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It merely notes a required field and does not explain whether this is a read or write operation, what side effects occur (e.g., hold on balance), or any authentication or rate-limit requirements.

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 very brief (two sentences) and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. While conciseness is good, the lack of essential information reduces effectiveness.

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 tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, yet the description fails to mention return values, error conditions, or practical usage context. For a financial confirmation tool, this is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 50%, and the description adds no meaning beyond what is already in the schema. For example, 'confirm' parameter schema already says 'Required as true for write or high-risk tools,' so repeating it adds no value. Other parameters like 'amountKobo' are left unexplained.

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 states 'Confirm debit card sufficient balance,' which clearly indicates the tool's purpose: to confirm that a debit card has sufficient balance. This distinguishes it from general balance checks like 'isw_check_debit_balance' and from prepaid confirmations via the name, though no explicit comparison is made.

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 only one guideline: 'Requires confirm: true.' It offers no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'isw_check_debit_balance' or 'isw_confirm_prepaid_sufficient,' nor does it specify prerequisites or scenarios.

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