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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose what the artifact contains (token, network, destination, amount) and what it is for (scan-once, no retyping). It does not state the concrete return shape, i.e. whether the caller receives image bytes, a data URI, or a URL — a meaningful omission for a generator tool with no output schema. No side-effect or auth information is given, though a QR generator is implicitly non-destructive.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the two warning blocks carry real routing value, but the prose is padded with rhetorical justification ('the money sits at an address nothing can deploy to') and restates the same point across multiple sentences. A tighter two-to-three-sentence version would convey the same selection logic.

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 single-parameter, low-complexity tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it produces, when to choose it, and why it is separate from `prepare`. The remaining gap is the concrete return representation, which nothing else in the definition supplies.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it tells the agent the parameter is a payment URI, where to obtain it (`prepare_escrow_payment`), and what that URI encodes. It stops short of giving the URI format/scheme, and the aside about `share_with_payer.pay_link` is slightly ambiguous since the schema exposes only one field.

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 first line states a concrete verb+resource ('a scannable code for a payment request') and the second half of the description explicitly contrasts it with `prepare_escrow_payment`, so the agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema. The scope note that it 'ENCODES THE URI, NOT THE BARE ADDRESS' further pins down what is produced.

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?

It names exactly which input to pass and where to get it ('Pass the `payment_uri` from `prepare_escrow_payment`'), plus an alternative source (`share_with_payer.pay_link`) with the condition that selects it (handing a link to a human payer). It also states why this is a separate tool rather than folded into `prepare`, which is precisely the routing decision an agent must make.

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