pay_verify_otp

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotations convey. It does not contradict annotations but also does not elaborate on side effects or other behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and critical note. It includes parameter descriptions but is slightly verbose with the colon-formatted param list. Every sentence adds value, but it could be more concise without losing clarity.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and critical warnings. It is fully self-contained for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the source of request_id beyond the schema, emphasizing it must come from payment initiation responses, not from otp_send_sms. This adds valuable context that helps avoid errors.

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 'Verify a payment OTP' and the context 'after the customer reads the code from their phone and sends it in chat'. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like otp_verify_sms by specifying that the request_id must come from payment initiation tools, not from otp_send_sms.

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 explicit guidance: when to use (for validating payment-related transactions), when not to use (not with standard SMS OTP request IDs), and specifies the source of request_id (payment/purchase initiation responses). It also warns about the 404 error for incorrect usage.

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