isw_pay_bill

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 mentions that the endpoint receives kobo and requires confirm:true, indicating a write operation. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether payment is final, idempotency), authorization requirements, or error scenarios. For a payment tool, critical behavioral details are missing.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant words. Every sentence adds value, making it very concise and easy to parse.

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 complexity (8 parameters, including nested object 'extra', no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain how to obtain values for customerId, payableCode, merchantCode, transactionRef, or the purpose of 'extra'. The return value is not mentioned, which is critical for a payment transaction.

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 only 38% (3 of 8 parameters described). The tool description adds that amountNaira or amountKobo can be used and that the endpoint receives kobo, which clarifies conversion. It also states confirm must be true. However, it does not explain parameters like customerId, payableCode, merchantCode, transactionRef, or extra, leaving gaps.

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 'Pay a bill through the payment route', which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly indicates the action of paying a bill. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'isw_pay_vas_bill', which might be for value-added services. The purpose is clear but lacks distinction from similar tools.

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 some usage guidance: use either amountNaira or amountKobo (not both) and set confirm to true. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like isw_pay_vas_bill or isw_airtime_recharge. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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