transfer_usdc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds valuable context about the 'configured account' and the token association requirement, but does not describe what happens on failure, whether the operation is irreversible, or what the tool returns. Basic behavior is covered, but not deeply.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or extraneous information.

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 simple transfer tool with 3 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description captures the essential purpose and prerequisite. It lacks details about return values or error conditions, but given the tool's low complexity, this is an acceptable gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema. The schema already explains amount as a decimal string, recipient as an account ID, and memo as optional.

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 action (send), the resource (USDC HTS token), and the destination (another Hedera account). It distinguishes from sibling tools like transfer_hbar and check_balance by specifying the token type and the 'configured account' sender.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (for USDC transfers) and states an important prerequisite (both accounts must be associated). It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but sibling names like transfer_hbar imply the distinction.

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