initiate_transfer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Initiate a money transfer' implies a mutable action, but the description does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., funds leave the sender, irreversibility), required permissions, or possible errors. For a financial operation, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 with no redundant words. It effectively states the tool's action and scope. However, for a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, the extreme brevity edges toward under-specification, but it still earns a 4 for being clear and focused.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 params, mutation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values (e.g., transfer ID or status), behavioral nuances (e.g., differences between EFT, FAST, and HAVALE), or constraints (e.g., processing time or limits). The description leaves too much to inference for a high-stakes financial 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 each parameter already has a description (e.g., 'Sender account ID', 'Receiver IBAN'). The tool description adds only the transfer-type enumeration (EFT/FAST/havale), which duplicates the enum in the schema. The description does not add meaningful semantic value beyond the schema, but the schema fully covers parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Initiate') and clearly identifies the resource ('money transfer'), while also enumerating the transfer types (EFT/FAST/havale). This distinguishes the tool from sibling tools, which are all read-only getters (e.g., get_accounts, get_transactions), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly conveys when to use this tool: to start a money transfer. Since all sibling tools are read-only (get_accounts, get_balance, get_transactions, etc.), it is implicitly the only tool for initiating transfers, and no exclusions are needed. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., sufficient funds), so it doesn't earn a 5.

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