transfer_money

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond the name. For a funds-movement operation it says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions or authorization, amount limits, idempotency, or failure modes such as insufficient balance — only the outward direction is added.

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?

The text is a single five-character fragment rather than a concise description; it is under-specified rather than tight. There is no structure to front-load because there is essentially one phrase with no supporting detail.

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?

A high-stakes mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and partial parameter documentation requires a far richer description to be callable correctly. Nothing about confirmation, effects, or return behavior is present, so the definition is not sufficient for safe invocation.

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 33%: only `to` is documented ('收款方账号或邮箱'), while `amount` and `currency` have no descriptions anywhere. The tool description adds nothing about expected formats, currency defaults, or decimal/precision conventions, so the coverage gap is not compensated.

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 phrase '向外转账付款' names a verb (transfer/pay) and resource (money) and adds the direction ('outbound'), so the core action is identifiable. However, it is a bare fragment with no scope, no counterparty model, and nothing that separates it from the only related sibling, risk_check, which an agent would plausibly need to call first.

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 provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention prerequisites, limits, or any alternative tool. An agent learns nothing about how this differs from risk_check or when a transfer should be preceded by a check.

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