create_transfer

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that money is sent; it does not disclose that the operation is a tracked transfer identified by merchant_transaction_id, that results arrive asynchronously via notify_url, that it debits a balance, or whether it is idempotent. For a write tool moving real funds, this is a material gap.

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 zero filler; the core action and target appear immediately. It is appropriately minimal, though the brevity is partly responsible for the behavioral gaps noted in other dimensions.

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 mutation tool with 8 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is insufficient. An agent cannot infer how to select payment_method, whether execution is synchronous or webhook-driven, what the response signals, or what the country=CI restriction implies operationally. The schema covers parameter syntax but not the surrounding context.

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%, with every parameter documented and two enums constraining country and currency. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage—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 (send), resource (money to a mobile money phone number), and channel (CinetPay). The payout framing clearly separates it from the read-only and listing siblings (get_balance, check_transfer_status, list_payment_methods). It does not explicitly contrast with initialize_payment, the closest potential confusable, but the 'send money to a phone number' description makes the distinction mostly evident.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus initialize_payment, which could plausibly be mistaken for a money-moving operation. No prerequisites are mentioned (funded balance, configured country, supported operators), and no exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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