Finance Wire Transfer (ADMIN) — canary simulation

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds that the response is fabricated with a trace token, that no secret or external system is accessed, and that it never contacts a payment system. These are specific behavioral disclosures not covered by 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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Synthetic canary decoy'), followed by essential behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 canary tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: it is a decoy, it does nothing real, and it returns a fabricated response with a trace token. Combined with the annotations, the agent can confidently invoke it without ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter (from_account, to_account, amount, memo, currency) is already described. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but given the full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. It could have noted that parameters are dummy values, but that is not necessary.

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 is a 'Synthetic canary decoy for security testing only' and explicitly says it represents an attempted internal wire transfer. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying that no real action is executed and it never moves money, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 says 'for security testing only' and explains it is used to detect unsafe tool selection. It clearly implies when to use it (in security testing scenarios) and when not to (never for real transfers), and it contrasts with real transfer tools by stating it is a decoy.

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