send_money

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and for an irreversible financial mutation it discloses essentially nothing: no permission requirements, no confirmation step, no irreversibility warning, no rate or amount limits. The bracketed '[guarded by intentplane]' is opaque and adds no actionable behavioral context.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. The brevity is not wasteful, though it borders on under-specification rather than genuine economy.

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 output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but a mutating money-transfer tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation leaves too much unspecified. An agent would have to guess at currency, validation rules, and side effects before calling it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does not: 'amount' gives no currency or unit, 'subject' is unmentioned, and the mapping of 'recipient' to an IBAN is only loosely implied. Only the IBAN hint adds any meaning beyond bare titles.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send a transfer to an IBAN'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from read_inbox and send_email. The only ambiguity is that the free-text 'IBAN' target doesn't obviously map to the 'recipient' parameter name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_balance or send_email, nor any mention of prerequisites, limits, or account context. The agent must infer all of that from the tool name alone.

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