Preview a payment before making it

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden and does so with 'without signing anything' plus a full list of returned values, making clear this is a non-mutating inspection. It does not state auth/prerequisite requirements (e.g., whether a wallet connection is needed to read the USDC balance) or whether the spend-limit figure is advisory versus reserved.

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, front-loaded with the key non-obvious fact ('without signing anything') before the field list. The field enumeration is long but each item is decision-relevant for confirming a payment; only the 'today's spend limit' clause edges toward surplus detail.

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 and no annotations, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating the return payload and declaring the no-signing behavior. Missing pieces are prerequisites/error behavior for an unknown order_id, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning, and it never mentions order_id at all — no statement of whether the order must be in a payable state or what happens for an invalid/unknown id. The param is a single self-explanatory uuid, and the output enumeration implies the input is an order reference, so the gap is real but limited.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Shows exactly what agoreum_pay_order would authorize') and immediately names the sibling it mirrors, so an agent can distinguish preview from the actual payment without opening either schema. The enumerated payload (amount, network/chain id, escrow, provider, release/reclaim times, balance, spend limit) reinforces exactly what is being previewed.

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?

'Use it to confirm the network and recipient before paying' gives a clear trigger condition and implicitly routes the agent to agoreum_pay_order after confirmation. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., don't call for already-paid or cancelled orders), which keeps it short of a 5.

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