list_transfers

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that the tool retrieves a list, omitting critical behaviors like pagination, date filtering, scoping by company_id, and response format. No side effects, authorization requirements, or limitations are disclosed, leaving agents to guess at runtime expectations.

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 single-sentence description is efficient and front-loaded, but it sacrifices substance for brevity. While there is no redundant wording, the description is under-specified rather than appropriately concise, offering only the basic purpose and nothing else.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for correct tool invocation. It does not explain the meaning or format of date and pagination parameters, whether any parameters beyond company_id are required, or what the response contains. The description is not complete enough for reliable agent use.

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 20%, with just company_id having a description. The description adds no information about limit, offset, start_date, or end_date, leaving their meanings and formats entirely unspecified. This is a major gap because the agent cannot determine how to construct valid filtering or pagination arguments.

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 '口座振替一覧を取得' clearly states a specific verb (取得, get) and resource (口座振替, account transfers), indicating a list operation. It is distinct enough from siblings like list_wallet_txns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself or name alternatives. The Japanese phrasing is concise and unambiguous for the intended audience.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_wallet_txns or list_invoices. There is no mention of business context, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. An agent must rely solely on the tool name to infer applicability.

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