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

The description goes well beyond the minimal annotations by explaining test-mode-only behavior, the durable create-and-authorize pipeline, inability to prove settlement, canonicality expectations, idempotency retry guidance, and the fact that no additional confirmation is needed after pre-authorization. This is substantial behavioral context beyond readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint.

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 opening is front-loaded with the action and prerequisites, but the description contains a large amount of generic boilerplate, especially the confirmation-boundary sentence listing unrelated categories like 'read, reversible save, explicit fact/evidence record, link preparation, plan refresh.' Several statements repeat the same point about prerequisites and confirmation, so not every sentence earns its place.

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 complex, state-changing tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers prerequisites, behavior, limitations, canonicality, idempotency, and confirmation policy. The main gaps are lack of explicit companyId semantics, no mention of what the actual_tool_output contains, and no direct differentiation from the payout probe sibling.

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 description coverage is only 20%, so the description carries most of the burden for parameter meaning. It usefully explains routeId as an active route, idempotencyKey as an exact key, and confirmation as the founder-confirmed sandbox charge, but companyId is left unexplained and _corply_context relies on the schema description. Core required parameters are reasonably covered, but optional parameter semantics are incomplete.

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 a specific action: create or replay a server-priced diagnostic order and send the card-payment source through the durable create-and-authorize pipeline in Moov sandbox. It also disambiguates from production payment tools by emphasizing test-mode-only money movement. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling run_sandbox_payout_probe, so some sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 gives strong when-to-use guidance: after fresh founder confirmation of the exact USD 1.00 charge, with an active route, fresh zero-variance reconciliation, server-held probe configuration, and an exact idempotency key. It also states a clear boundary: it cannot charge live money, enable production, or prove settlement. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as run_sandbox_payout_probe or when not to use this tool in favor of another.

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