check_payment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden and does it well: 'dry-run' communicates no side effects, and the return vocabulary (allow/approve/deny with reason) tells the agent what decisioning model to expect, including a third 'approve' state between allow and deny. It doesn't say whether checks are logged, expire, or bind a later payment.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return values, then the usage rule. No filler and no repetition of the name.

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 usefully covers return values, and the no-annotation case is partly offset by the dry-run framing. However, for a 3-required-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the omission of amount formatting and of how a passing check relates to the subsequent 'pay' call leaves real gaps.

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 0% and all three required parameters (wallet_id, to, amount_usdc) are undocumented in both places. The description adds no meaning — notably it never explains that amount_usdc is a string or what unit/precision it expects, which is the most error-prone input.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Dry-run a payment against the policy' — and the 'dry-run' qualifier cleanly separates it from the sibling 'pay' tool. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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 routes the agent: 'Agents should call this before pay,' naming the sibling alternative and the sequencing rule. It stops short of saying when a check can be skipped or how long a result remains valid, so it's strong but not exhaustive.

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