simulate_deposit

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions behavior like 'drive real reconciliation with no bank movement', but lacks details on side effects (e.g., account creation) and response format. Somewhat vague.

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?

One sentence packing key information: environment, purpose, behavior, and unit. Could be slightly more structured but efficient.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, the effect of reversal, or the role of senderName. Acceptable for sandbox but could be more thorough.

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 0%, and the description only explains 'Amount in kobo' for amountKobo. No explanation for accountRef, reversal, or senderName. Minimal value added beyond schema.

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 it is for sandbox/test-mode and its purpose: to drive reconciliation by simulating a deposit without real bank movement. Uses specific verbs and distinguishes from real transaction tools.

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?

Explicitly says 'Sandbox only (test-mode keys)', telling when to use. Implies it's for testing reconciliation without alternatives, but no explicit exclusions or when-not.

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