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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses exactly what the tool returns (status, amount, deadline, TX hash if paid), what happens for other order_ids (returns PromptPay guidance and nothing about the order), and the payment/confirmation flow. This is a transparent read-only description with no hidden side effects.

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 sentences, each essential: a warning, the return payload, and the fallback behavior/payment context. No fluff or redundant phrasing.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it tells what it returns, when to use it, when not to, and the payment context. Nothing an agent needs for correct invocation is missing.

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 100% for order_id, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant meaning: it specifies that only orders from GYOTAK test customers are valid, and that any other order_id yields PromptPay guidance instead of order data. This clarifies the parameter's domain and edge-case behavior beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Returns') and resource ('Cardano preprod payment session'), and restricts it to orders placed by a GYOTAK test customer. It also clarifies the tool's scope is test/QA only, distinguishing it from sibling payment tools like confirm_payment or create_payment.

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 explicitly forbids use for customer orders ('Test / QA only — do not use for customer orders'), giving a clear when-not condition. It also describes behavior for any other order_id, which implicitly tells agents that the tool is only meaningful for test customer orders.

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