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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond routing: no auth requirements (agent_key, token), no statement that a payout request is a consequential money movement, no idempotency semantics despite an idempotency_key parameter, and no mention of payment_signature or delete_credential. The endpoint paths are the only behavioral hint.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the three modes and their HTTP shapes are stated in one compact block with no filler. It is telegraphic to the point of under-specification, but nothing is wasted.

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 an 11-parameter, multi-action mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and near-zero schema descriptions, the definition is not complete: authentication, idempotency, error behavior, and the relationship between the address action and a successful payout are all absent.

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 9%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by mapping body fields per action (optional payout_id for request, payout_address for address) — valuable because the schema body is a generic 'see OpenAPI' object. But nine other parameters (id, token, handle, agent_key, wanted_id, transfer_id, idempotency_key, delete_credential, payment_signature) get no explanation at all, leaving the coverage gap largely unfilled.

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 names three concrete actions with specific verbs and resources: read supplier payout balances, request a payout, and set the agent payout address. That is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as supplier_pot, supplier_checkout, or balance_get, which an agent must disambiguate without help.

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 enumerates the three actions but gives no criteria for choosing among them, no prerequisites, and no mention of when a payout should be requested versus when the address must be set first. No alternatives or exclusions are named against the many sibling tools.

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