create_transfer

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

Annotations indicate side effects and idempotency, and the description adds concrete guidance on how idempotency works (reuse customerTransactionId) plus the PSD2 restriction. It does not contradict annotations, though the destructiveHint remains unexplained.

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 two concise, front-loaded sentences that efficiently convey purpose, prerequisites, idempotency, and a regional caveat with no wasted words.

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 creation tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, prerequisites, idempotency, and a regional restriction. It omits response shape and the funding step, but the schema and sibling list partially compensate.

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 schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the required parameters and explains customerTransactionId's idempotency, but this adds little beyond the schema's existing explanations.

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 'Create a new transfer' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like fund_transfer and cancel_transfer by emphasizing the need for a quote ID and recipient account ID.

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 provides clear context for use: requires a quote ID and recipient account ID, and includes a regional restriction for EU/UK. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios, but the prerequisites imply a proper workflow.

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