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

The description reveals many non-obvious behaviors: the server parses the messy text, optional fields override parsing, missing parts must not be invented, waiting orders resume automatically, and the success response should be relayed via sayToUserRu. It also gives authentication retry behavior around sessionId. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: trigger, input strategy, parsing behavior, success action, auth handling, and explicit guardrails. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and call conditions.

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 tool with 14 params and no output schema, the description covers when to call, what to pass, what happens server-side, what to do after success, and how to recover from auth errors. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

With only 21% schema coverage, the description carries substantial parameter meaning: it explains that text is the full raw phrase, that the server splits it into fields, and that structured fields override the parse. It does not individually detail all 14 params, but the field names are mostly self-explanatory and the main text-passing semantic is clear.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Save the owner's home address into the AgentPay cabinet, parsed into courier fields.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like get_delivery_address.

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?

Explicit trigger conditions are given: specific Russian phrases, dictated address components, and the post-NEED_USER_DATA case. It also provides strong exclusions: never begin_agent_link again, never ask the owner to edit connector settings, and never web-search.

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