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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating it does not sign, fund a wallet, or create an authorization)Skip. It also explains that pending/unknown results should be checked by polling the same run. This is consistent with the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with 'Financial action', and every sentence carries essential information. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 three-parameter payment submission tool with strong annotations)Skip, the description covers the key operational behaviors and follow-up action. It does not describe the output or return value, but no output schema exists and the focus is correctly on invocation semantics.

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 67%, and the description reinforces the paymentSignature semantics by emphasizing that it is caller-created and submitted as-is. However, it does not add detail about runId or clientToken beyond what the schema already provides, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific action: forwards an existing PAYMENT-SIGNATURE for a specific run. It clearly distinguishes this from signing, wallet funding, or creating a new authorization, and the title reinforces the intent.

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 implies the right usage context: when a caller already has a payment signature for the run. It also gives post-call guidance ('Poll the same run after pending/unknown outcomes') and clarifies what the tool does not do, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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