pay_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical limitation: 'this server never finishes the charge itself' — the payment must be completed by the user at payment_url, which signs into Ozon Bank. It also explains the result fields (amount_due, shortfall, next_step) and instructs how to relay them. This goes beyond basic behavior to reveal side effects and user involvement.

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 longer than average but every sentence contributes: it states purpose, explains result fields, clarifies the server's role, and gives user instructions. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. It is structured but slightly verbose; could be tightened while retaining all details.

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 payment-charge tool with an output schema, the description covers the preconditions (order awaiting payment), the action, the result fields, and the user's next steps. It also mentions the pay-on-delivery alternative. It does not explicitly cover error handling (e.g., what if the order is already paid), but the precondition is stated. Given complexity, this is fairly complete.

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%, and the schema description already documents the order parameter including format and accepted detail_link. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema fully handles parameter semantics.

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 states a specific action: 'Ask Ozon to charge an order left in «Ожидаем оплаты»' and 'report what the user must still do.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like place_order (new orders) and cancel_order (cancellations) by targeting the awaiting-payment state. The verb 'charge' plus resource 'order' is precise.

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 explicitly states the condition for use: orders in the 'Ожидаем оплаты' state. It also hints at an alternative: 'Ordering with pay-on-delivery avoids all of it,' implying when not to use this tool. However, it does not name a specific sibling tool as an alternative, leaving some inference to the agent. This is clear context but not fully explicit about exclusions beyond pay-on-delivery.

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