Savings recurring transfer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's added value is the 'if one is set' conditional, warning that absence is a normal outcome. It does not disclose the shape of the returned transfer or any error/empty-result behavior.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource, and the qualifying condition is placed at the end where it does not obscure the main claim. Nothing to trim.

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?

Inputs are fully covered by the schema and safety by the annotations, so the description only needs to carry the resource identity, which it does. With no output schema, though, it could reasonably say what the recurring transfer comprises (amount, frequency, next date), leaving a gap for an agent interpreting the result.

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 100% – both accountUid (with its default-resolution rules) and savingsGoalUid are fully documented in the schema. The description nods at the target ('into a savings space') but adds no format, defaulting, or identifying semantics beyond what the schema already states. 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 (Gets) and a well-defined resource (the recurring transfer / automatic top-up into a savings space). The parenthetical gloss clarifies the domain term, distinguishing it from generic transaction or standing-order lookups. It stops short of naming a sibling it differs from, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 clause 'if one is set' implicitly tells the agent this is a single-item lookup that may return nothing, which is a usable usage hint. However, it never states when to call this versus alternatives like get_round_up or get_standing_order, nor what a caller should do when no transfer exists.

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