Send money from your available balance

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

Far beyond the annotations, it discloses idempotency-Key retry semantics, immediate reservation of amount plus fees with an insufficient_funds error, the ₦10 minimum and 50-character narration cap, the never-failed-until-confirmed status model with transfer.succeeded/transfer.failed events, and the full set of 403 refusal reasons. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before an irreversible money movement.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the idempotency requirement, then layered with reservation, status, and error details in scannable paragraphs. The final sentence restates idempotency_key guidance already given twice, which is slight redundancy against an otherwise dense, purposeful text.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with seven parameters and no output schema, the description covers funds flow, failure semantics, event notifications, and error codes well. It never describes the shape of the returned transfer object (fields besides status), which is the main remaining ambiguity given the absent output schema.

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 only 43%, but the description compensates for the critical fields: it clarifies amount is in kobo with a minimum, ties narration to its 50-character limit, and explains idempotency_key semantics. It leaves reference and metadata behavior to the schema, which is acceptable since those are self-explanatory.

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?

It states a concrete action and resource: sending money from available balance to any Nigerian bank account, with scope (funds held in balance) that separates it from read siblings like list_transfers. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the other money-movement sibling, create_payment, so the agent must infer which of the two write tools to reach for.

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?

Gives clear preconditions: resolve the account first via name-enquiry, confirm exact amount in kobo and destination with the user, and note live mode sends real money. It never names an alternative tool (e.g. that simulate_transfer exists for sandbox) or states when not to use this, but the context for correct invocation is strong.

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