Validate Existing Disbursement

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, consistent with the creation side effect. The description explicitly states it creates a new Payments object and returns it, which adds behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not discuss side effects beyond creation, authorization needs, or rate limits.

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 moderately concise, including necessary information but also redundant details like the full endpoint URL and API reference. It could be tightened 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?

The description covers the purpose, required parameters, and endpoint, but lacks details on what the returned object contains (no output schema). The conflict between 'validate' and 'create' leaves the tool's net effect ambiguous.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (company_id, disbursement_id). The description only repeats that they are required, adding no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it performs a 'validate existing' action on Payments, but confusingly says it 'Creates a new Payments'. This contradiction between the verb 'validate' and the creation side effect blurs the tool's true purpose. Additionally, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'validate_disbursement' tool.

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 basic context—'Use this to perform the validate existing action on Payments'—and lists required parameters. However, it fails to specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'validate_disbursement', or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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