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

The description reveals a non-obvious behavior: despite the 'send_tx' name, it does not immediately broadcast a transaction but creates an invoice and returns a page for user review and confirmation. This adds valuable context beyond the annotations, which only indicate a write operation with open world 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes the key outcome (HTTPS page). It is concise without sacrificing essential information.

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 description covers the main purpose and flow, but lacks explanation of the 'action' parameter and does not mention any prerequisites or consequences after user confirmation. The lack of an output schema is not an issue, but the unexplained parameter is a notable omission for a tool with only one parameter.

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 single parameter 'action' has an enum (deploy, publish, media) but the description provides no meaning or guidance on how to choose among these values. With 0% schema coverage and no parameter explanation, the agent is left to guess what each action represents, which is a significant 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 clearly states the tool's function: create a backend-owned payment invoice and return a confirmation page. It uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('payment invoice'), and distinguishes itself by describing the interactive TON Connect confirmation flow, which is unique among sibling transaction tools.

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 when to use it (when needing to create a payment confirmation link) but does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or any exclusion criteria. Given there are no other payment tools in siblings, the lack of alternative guidance is partially mitigated, but it could still clarify prerequisites like whether a product must exist.

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