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

The annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world and non-idempotent behavior; the description usefully adds that nothing is approved or sent, and that the response carries each payment's lifecycle state. That is real behavioral context beyond the structured hints, though auth needs and side effects of partial preparation are not spelled out.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the identity of the tool and followed by the behavioral boundary and the argument hint. Minor awkwardness in opening with 'Spec v1.0 name for run_payments' before saying what the tool does, but no wasted sentences.

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 five-parameter preparation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it produces (lifecycle state per payment), what it will not do (approve or send), and the sample mode. Only the omission of the overlapping prepare_payment sibling and any auth/side-effect notes keeps it short of 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including sample as the synthetic run. The description only reiterates the sample flag and the 'same arguments as run_payments' equivalence, which is mildly useful but adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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 and resource: it prepares each payment, doing payee validation, route assessment, instruction building and an approval digest, and returns lifecycle state. It distinguishes itself from run_payments by framing itself as the 'Spec v1.0 name' for it, though it never mentions the closely related sibling prepare_payment, leaving one disambiguation gap.

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 phrase 'Never approves or sends' implies this is the pre-approval preparation step, which is actionable context, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this over run_payments, prepare_payment or request_payment_approval. The note that it takes 'same arguments as run_payments' helps selection but is not a usage rule.

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