aza_buy_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that payment is from the wallet but does not discuss idempotency, reversibility, error handling, or rate limits. For a financial transaction tool, this is insufficient.

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 very concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and there is no wasted text.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., confirmation of purchase). It does not mention outcomes or failure modes, leaving a gap for a payment tool.

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%, providing basic descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by specifying that the plan parameter requires a code from aza_list_data_plans, which is useful context beyond the schema.

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 the action ('Buy a data bundle'), target ('Nigerian phone number'), and payment method ('connected Aza wallet'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling aza_buy_airtime by specifying 'data bundle'.

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 provides a clear prerequisite: 'Get a plan code from aza_list_data_plans first.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for airtime), though sibling context implies that.

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