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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not idempotent, but the description adds important context beyond that: it prepares a real funding route, prefers MPP mode, and states that the Field Agent will not claim or execute until Stripe confirms real payment. This meaningfully clarifies side effects and preconditions.

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 only two sentences long, starts with the core purpose, and includes the most critical behavioral caveat right after. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of schema or annotation 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?

Given the high schema coverage, the presence of an output schema, and the annotation set, the description covers the essential operational context: what the tool does, which mode to prefer, and when the Field Agent will act. It does not elaborate on Stripe confirmation handling, but that is not required for correct invocation.

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 schema already covers all three parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra parameter-level guidance by recommending MPP for autonomous agents, which reinforces and adds context to the default mode value beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Prepare a real funding route') and a specific resource ('a Nexus Field Agent task'). It also adds clarifying behavioral context (payment must confirm via Stripe before the Field Agent claims or executes), which makes the tool's role distinct from payment quote or status-checking siblings.

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 one useful usage hint: 'Prefer MPP for autonomous agents,' which helps select among payment modes. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like field_agent_payment_quote or check_field_agent_payment, leaving some routing decisions to inference.

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