List Transfers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral value beyond that: the lifecycle statuses (NEW, PENDINGAUTH, ... CANCELED) and the fact that results are limited to 'in-progress and recent' transfers.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load scope and returned fields, followed by a short routing sentence. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema present, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the fields and status enum. It omits pagination or result-limit behavior for a 'list all' tool, which is a minor remaining gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for anything in 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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (inbound domain transfers) scoped to 'in-progress and recent' for the authenticated account, and it enumerates the fields returned (domain, status, create date). An agent can distinguish it from get_transfer_status and transfer_domain immediately.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent with 'Use this to monitor transfers initiated by transfer_domain', giving clear usage context. It does not, however, state when to prefer the sibling get_transfer_status for a single transfer, so exclusions are absent.

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