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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it returns code, and a charge settles as a private transfer in a Gloam vault where the chain sees no amount, asset, payer or payee. That privacy/behavioral detail is the main value-add.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and then the settlement/privacy detail. No filler, though the package name and protocol parenthetical are slightly dense.

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 read-only how-to tool with two fully documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly and sets expectations about returned code and vault settlement. It is complete without being exhaustive.

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% with both enums fully described (role: pay/charge/both; network: tempo/robinhood), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no role or network semantics beyond it, which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it is a how-to guide for paying or charging privately over MPP, naming the protocol (HTTP 402) and the package (@gloamtrade/mppx-gloam). This is clearly distinct from action siblings like gloam_create_payment_request or gloam_plan_deposit, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with gloam_info, the nearest documentation sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the reference to read before implementing MPP payments, since it returns 'code'. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no routing to alternatives such as gloam_info or gloam_connect_full_agent.

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