create_mobile_money_payment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the dependency chain and that amount interpretation is currency-dependent, which is real context. But it is silent on whether the charge is synchronous, idempotency, failure/refund behavior, and authentication requirements — significant gaps for a money-movement operation.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed immediately by the prerequisite calls. Every clause earns its place.

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 5-parameter payment-initiation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers inputs and prerequisites but omits the lifecycle after invocation — notably that get_payment_status is the way to track the result. That omission leaves the agent without a post-call path.

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 60%, and the description compensates for the key gaps: it explains where 'provider' comes from (providerCode from get_supported_countries) and resolves the ambiguous amount unit (whole units vs. cents depending on currency). currency and merchant_reference remain undocumented in both places.

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 ('Charge') and resource ('African mobile-money wallet'), then names concrete providers (M-Pesa, Airtel, MTN, Mixx by Yas). This clearly separates it from sibling creation tools such as create_disbursement, create_escrow, and create_paypal_order without the agent needing to open a 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 prescribes a prerequisite ordering: call get_supported_countries first for the provider code, and get_supported_currencies for unit interpretation. That is actionable routing to siblings. It does not, however, state when NOT to use this tool (e.g. payouts vs. collection, or regional exclusions).

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