sibs_create_checkout

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose the key happy-path outcome ('Returns transactionID and checkout URL'). It does not describe flow behaviors such as whether the payment is authorized immediately, whether customer redirect is required, or failure/idempotency behavior, leaving a meaningful gap for a payment tool.

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 short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. The minor-units note and return values are each useful for calling the tool correctly despite the schema already documenting amount units.

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 financial creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse: it gives only the happy-path return and omits the checkout flow's place in the payment lifecycle, how it relates to the MBWay sibling, and any failure or redirect behavior. An agent would rely heavily on inferred context to select and invoke this tool 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description does not need to add much. It restates the minor-units rule for amount but adds no semantics about currency, customer fields, or paymentMethods beyond what the schema already provides; this meets the baseline.

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 immediately states an action and object: 'Create a new SIBS checkout/payment.' It also names concrete outputs ('transactionID and checkout URL'), which makes the operation recognizable. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish this from the sibling sibs_mbway_payment or sibs_generate_mb_reference, so it is not fully differentiating.

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?

There is no 'use when' language, exclusion of alternatives, or reference to sibling tools. The only usage signal is the implied 'when you need to create a checkout,' and the description does not say when to use this instead of sibs_mbway_payment or how it fits with capture/refund/status tools.

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