fin.wire_transfer

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a destructive/mutating action but does not mention fees, reversibility, approval needs, or other behavioral traits typical of financial transactions.

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. No unnecessary words, and every part of the description adds value.

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?

With no output schema and 4 parameters, the description covers required inputs but omits expected output (e.g., confirmation, reference number) and processing details. Adequate but not complete for a financial transaction tool.

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% for all parameters. The description adds 'Requires account number, routing number, and amount', which aligns with required fields, but adds little new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses 'Initiate a bank wire transfer to an external account', clearly stating the verb (initiate) and resource (wire transfer). This distinguishes it from sibling finance tools like fin.process_payment or fin.submit_expense, which handle different transaction types.

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?

Description implies use for external wire transfers but does not specify when not to use or mention alternatives such as fin.process_payment for other payment methods. No explicit exclusions or context are provided.

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