get_payment_networks

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely non-obvious behavior: that unavailable brands are deliberately included so callers do not assume their existence. It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, response format, or how freshness/availability is determined, so the disclosure is partial rather than rich.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core content (brands, markets, provider codes) is front-loaded. The second sentence is slightly awkwardly worded ('so they are not assumed') but still earns its place by flagging a non-obvious inclusion behavior.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates the payload contents — brands, markets reached, and provider-selecting codes — which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of explaining how provider codes feed into tools like create_mobile_money_payment or what the record shape looks like.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies per the rubric. The description has no parameters to explain and correctly avoids inventing any; it instead spends its words on what the call returns.

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 identifies a specific resource — mobile-money brands, their markets, and provider codes — so an agent can tell this is a network/brand catalog tool. However it never uses a verb (list/get/retrieve) and does not name or contrast itself with siblings like get_supported_countries or get_supported_currencies, leaving some differentiation to inference.

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 explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of any sibling tool. The only usage-adjacent signal is the note that unavailable brands are included, which hints at why an agent should consult this list rather than assume a brand exists, but that is indirect guidance at best.

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