radiant_send_batch

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that 'inputs are selected once and change is returned in a single output,' which goes beyond the schema. However, it omits important side effects for a send tool—such as signing/broadcasting an irreversible on-chain transaction and how fees are deducted—so an agent must infer those.

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?

Three sentences, all informative: the action, the economic rationale, and the canonical use case. The key purpose is front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry the operational contract. It does not state what the tool returns (e.g., a transaction ID) or explicitly confirm on-chain broadcast and irreversibility. The schema covers constraints like max 100 outputs and fee defaults, but the full operational behavior is incomplete.

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 slight semantic color around change handling and cost efficiency, but it does not add meaningful per-parameter meaning beyond what the input schema already documents.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Send RXD to multiple recipients in a single transaction.' It clearly distinguishes this from the single-send sibling by emphasizing batching, cost savings, and repeated-input selection, so an agent can understand its purpose without opening the schema.

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: multiple recipients, with an explicit cost rationale ('Much cheaper than N separate transactions') and a concrete use case ('agent fan-out payments'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is strong.

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