check_transfer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Check' and references rules, implying a read-only validation, but it does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or what a successful/failed check returns. The 'step 4' note is development context rather than behavioral transparency.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded purpose, no filler. Each sentence adds either purpose, parameter context, or an enum clarification.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no annotations, and the description covers the manual-input rationale and window values, but it omits out_id/transfers_available semantics and explicit alternative guidance. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the remaining gaps keep it from being complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains the in_* parameters as manual inputs and enumerates window values (in_season, closed/reopened). However, out_id and transfers_available are left unexplained, and no units or formats are given for in_value or in_position.

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 opening sentence 'Check one swap against §6.4 and §6.8' names a specific verb, object, and rule scope. The note that the incoming player is described by hand because there is no market data yet distinguishes this from the sibling check_market_transfer, which presumably uses market lookup.

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 clearly implies this tool is for manually described incoming players when no market data exists, and mentions that step 4 will replace these arguments with a lookup. It does not explicitly name check_market_transfer or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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