decode_bolt11_invoice

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Successfully discloses operational constraints: no external dependencies, signature verification limitations, and parsing scope boundaries. Could improve by explicitly stating error behavior for malformed invoices or idempotency status.

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?

Three tight sentences followed by Args documentation. Each sentence delivers distinct value: capability, specific extraction targets, and critical limitations. No redundancy or filler content.

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?

Appropriately complete for a single-parameter decoding tool. Output schema exists, so return value description isn't required in text. Covers input format validation hints (prefixes), operational constraints, and parsing limitations sufficiently for agent invocation.

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% (parameter lacks description field). Description compensates fully by providing critical format semantics: 'BOLT11 payment request string (starts with lnbc, lntb, or lnbcrt)', which defines expected input patterns that the schema omits.

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?

Specific verb 'Decode' + resource 'BOLT11 Lightning invoice' + scope 'without external dependencies'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling 'decode_raw_transaction' by focusing on Lightning invoices rather than base-layer transactions.

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?

Explicitly states limitations ('Does NOT verify the signature or parse tagged fields beyond basic extraction'), guiding agents away from using this for validation needs. 'Without external dependencies' signals appropriate context for standalone parsing. No named sibling alternatives exist for signature verification, but the limitation is clearly disclosed.

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