okx_subaccount_set_transfer_out

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely labels the tool as 'WRITE' but gives no details on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or outcomes. The agent learns nothing about what happens when the tool is invoked beyond the obvious mutation implied by the name.

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 extremely short, but its brevity comes at the cost of informativeness. It front-loads a category label but then wastes space on a prerequisite instruction that could be in a separate field. Every sentence should add value; here, the only substantive content is a note about another tool.

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 2 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description should provide complete context for usage. It fails to explain the tool's return value, error conditions, or how it relates to the prerequisite tool. The description is incomplete and leaves the agent with significant gaps in understanding.

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 100% with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. However, the description adds no additional meaning or context for the parameters; it just repeats the prerequisite note. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but since the description provides zero additional value, the score is reduced to 2.

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 includes '[L:WRITE]' and 'CAT:[账户-子账户]' hinting at a write operation on subaccounts, but the main content '→ 请先调用 agent_catalog' is a prerequisite instruction rather than a clear statement of what the tool does. The verb and resource are implied by the tool name, but the description fails to explicitly state 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 only instructs to call 'agent_catalog' first, providing minimal context. It does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or selection criteria. The prerequisite note is useful but insufficient for guiding selection.

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