Quote transfer

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

Even with readOnlyHint true, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the specific policy checks performed, the explicit 'Does not move funds,' mode-selection advice, and the required user-facing step before sending. None of this contradicts the annotation.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it does, what it does not do, mode guidance, and next-step sequencing. No filler or repetition.

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 quote tool with no output schema, the description conveys that the result is a displayable quote and policy result and tells the agent to show it before cims_send. It would be more complete if it described the shape or statuses of the returned quote/policy check.

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 schema already documents fromQuery, toQuery, and amount, and constrains mode/asset via enums; the description adds meaningful guidance for mode ('Prefer delayed mode for first-time or large payments'). It does not explain asset selection or otherwise compensate for the remaining undocumented parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Price and policy-check a transfer,' and enumerates the checks involved (name check, AML, attestation requirement). It also explicitly contrasts with cims_send by saying it does not move funds, so an agent can tell quote from execution.

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?

It gives clear usage context: prefer delayed mode for first-time or large payments and show the quote before cims_send. It does not spell out when to prefer cims_validate_id or cims_attest instead, but the main workflow alternative is named.

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