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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false and openWorld=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavior — the client must confirm on their phone — but says nothing about the resulting state (pending vs completed), latency, or failure handling for a tool with no output schema.

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 short sentences with the critical precondition front-loaded and no filler. Slightly redundant since the parenthetical largely restates the title, but nothing is wasted.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with zero schema documentation and no output schema, two sentences is thin. The description leaves undocumented parameters, the return/state after launch, and the phone-confirmation flow's implications for follow-up calls.

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 0% across six parameters, and the description never names or explains any of them. It does not say what token authorizes, what pays/numero/reseau mean, or the currency and unit of montant, so the schema's heavy burden is entirely unmitigated.

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 names a concrete action ("Lancer un Mobile Money") and clarifies the mechanic ("le client valide sur son téléphone"), so the agent knows this initiates a push-confirm payment. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as retirer_mobile_money or envoyer_argent, so the resource boundary stays partly ambiguous.

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 opening clause "Réservé à la feuille de paiement Tchin affichée dans la conversation" is a real precondition that tells the agent when this tool is valid. It gives no explicit alternative for when that sheet is absent, so an exclusion is implied rather than stated.

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