SellerWallet_getTransferPreview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation and 'potential fees' suggests no actual charges are applied, which are useful hints. The explicit statement that it 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here' is also a significant behavioral disclosure. However, the description does not clarify what 'Catalog entry' means, what the returned list contains, or whether authentication or account context is required.

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 short and avoids unnecessary length, but the ordering is weak: the core purpose sentence comes last, after the confusing 'Catalog entry' label and the deployment note. The first two sentences may be contextually meaningful, but they are not clearly connected to how an agent should invoke the tool, so the structure is only adequate.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more detail about the expected result, the meaning of 'transaction', and whether the tool is directly invocable in this MCP environment. The deployment note is helpful, but it creates ambiguity rather than resolving it, and the absence of any return-structure or usage-context information leaves the agent under-informed.

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 input schema has zero defined properties, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies, and the description does not need to explain inputs. The empty schema and the description do not conflict.

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 includes a specific and intelligible purpose: 'Retrieve a list of potential fees on a transaction.' This clearly identifies the resource ('potential fees') and action ('retrieve'), and it differentiates the tool from sibling SellerWallet tools that manage accounts, balances, transactions, and transfer schedules. However, the opening phrases 'Catalog entry' and 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here' add confusion about whether this is actually an invocable tool.

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 about when to use this tool versus any alternative, such as before creating a transaction or prior to setting up a transfer schedule. 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here' is deployment context, not usage guidance; it does not tell the agent when to select this tool or which sibling to prefer. The agent is left to infer the appropriate invocation context.

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