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. It only states what the tool does, not the nature of the output (e.g., placeholder values, authentication headers, whether it uses real credentials), nor any side effects or limitations. This is a significant gap for a snippet generator that might include code with assumptions about the environment.

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 sentence that is direct and free of filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand. There is no wasted content.

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?

The tool is simple with only one parameter and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks contextual details about the snippet's content, such as authentication handling or whether it is production-ready. Given the low complexity, the description is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the 'language' parameter having an enum and a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond echoing 'in the requested language,' so it does not improve upon the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 clearly states that it generates a raw HTTP sample for creating a Payram payment, with a specific verb ('generates'), resource ('HTTP sample'), and purpose ('creating a Payram payment'). The phrase 'raw HTTP' distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_payment_sdk_snippet or generate_payment_route_snippet, making its 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 implies usage for raw HTTP snippet generation, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., SDK or route snippets). It provides no exclusions or alternative tool references, so the guidance is only implicit through the tool name and the words 'raw HTTP'.

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