Confirmation of funds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for the non-obvious behavioral detail that the overdraft is included in the evaluation, which the annotations cannot convey. It stops short of saying whether it throws, returns a flag, or what happens on an unknown account.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler: the action, the subject, the required input, and the overdraft nuance all appear in the first clause set. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value and it does not—an agent cannot tell whether it gets a boolean, an available-balance figure, or a structured result. For a read-only confirmation check the missing return/error contract is the main gap.

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%: both parameters are fully documented, including the accountUid default resolution chain and the minor-units convention (1050 = £10.50). The description adds only 'the given amount', so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies.

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 ('checks') and resource ('account funds') plus the exact condition being evaluated (enough available money for a payment), and adds that the overdraft is factored in. This makes it distinguishable from get_account_balance, though the description never names that sibling to make the boundary explicit.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'for a payment of the given amount' hints it is a pre-payment affordability check. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. get_account_balance) an agent could route against.

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