authorize_funds_transfer

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

The description explains the tool's return behavior: 'Returns a structured DENY (with the OFAC rule cite) or ALLOW verdict'. It also hints at idempotency or safety by emphasizing the ordering condition. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or errors, which would be expected given no annotations.

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 description is mostly concise with two sentences. The first sentence is dense but front-loads the core logic. The second sentence adds return value details. Minor improvement could split the first sentence for readability, but it remains effective.

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?

Despite missing annotations and output schema, the description covers key behavior: precondition, return verdicts, and a warning about unsafe ordering. It does not explain error cases or all parameter dependencies, but for a tool with 5 parameters and no siblings, it provides sufficient context for an agent.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain individual parameters. While the description references 'version-pinned OFAC SDN screen', it does not map to the 'screen' object or other fields. The agent must infer parameter meanings from the schema structure alone, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Authorize a funds transfer only if a version-pinned OFAC SDN screen returned CLEAR and COMPLETED'. It specifies the verb (authorize), resource (funds transfer), and critical precondition, making it distinct and 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 description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'only if a version-pinned OFAC SDN screen returned CLEAR and COMPLETED'. It also warns that 'every unsafe ordering DENYs', providing clear guidance on correct usage. No alternatives exist among siblings, but the condition is precise.

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