venmo_transfer_to_bank

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention that this is a state-changing financial transaction, potential fees, reversibility, or the need for authentication. It only hints at the prerequisite of a linked bank account. This lack of transparency is significant for a money-moving tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and a key usage note. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or filler content. It is concise without sacrificing clarity.

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 financial transfer tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about prerequisites, side effects, fees, and expected return behavior. It doesn't mention transfer speed options or fees (which are only in the schema), nor does it explain what a successful transfer returns or what error scenarios might arise. The description is under-specified for the complexity of the operation.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description's only parameter-related note, 'Omit amount to transfer the full balance,' duplicates the schema's amount description and adds no new meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description offers marginal value beyond the schema.

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 function: 'Transfer your Venmo balance to a linked bank account.' This specifies the verb, resource, and scope, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like venmo_send_payment or venmo_get_balance. The additional note about omitting the amount clarifies the behavior of transferring the full balance, further sharpening the purpose.

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 clear context that this tool is for withdrawing funds to a bank account, which sets it apart from other Venmo tools. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives (e.g., 'use this instead of send_payment to withdraw cash') or state prerequisites like having a linked bank account. The context is clear but not fully explicit.

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