create_disbursement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two non-obvious traits: an environment/auth requirement (ULTRANER_SIGNATURE_KEY, and the reason — the API needs a signature naming the authoriser) and a restricted market footprint relative to collection. It still omits idempotency, failure modes, and whether funds move immediately, so it is not fully transparent.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads and the constraints follow. The ULTRANER_SIGNATURE_KEY reference is slightly cryptic without context on where the key comes from, but the text is otherwise tight.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description covers auth and availability but says nothing about parameter usage, idempotency, or the result of a successful call. It is adequate for a cautious agent but not complete.

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 coverage is only 33% (network and account_number are documented in the schema), yet the description adds no parameter-level meaning at all — amount, currency, remarks, and recipient_name are undocumented in both places. For a payment tool where amount/currency semantics matter, this leaves real gaps.

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: 'Pay money out to a mobile wallet', which maps cleanly onto a disbursement/payout operation and contrasts with the 'collection' direction mentioned later. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling create_mobile_money_payment, which sounds like it could cover the same ground.

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 implies usage context ('live in fewer markets than collection') and gives one precondition: check get_capabilities for market availability. It never says when to prefer this tool over create_mobile_money_payment or the other create_* siblings, so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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