create_invoice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool does NOT make an HTTP request but produces a URL for redirecting, which is transparent about the side-effect. However, it does not mention authentication requirements or rate limits that might be relevant.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and adds a critical caveat about not making an HTTP request. Every sentence 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description is not required to detail return values. It does mention that it produces a URL and form fields, which aligns with the output. However, given the tool has 13 parameters, a bit more context about prerequisites or error states could be helpful.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'builds a signed URL and form fields'. It does not elaborate on any parameters, but the schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for each.

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?

Clearly states it builds a signed checkout URL and form fields for a new payment. Distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it does not make an HTTP request, which contrasts with tools like check_payment or hold_init that likely perform actual API calls.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for creating a payment URL, but no guidance on when not to use it or mention of sibling tools like hold_init for card binding. Lacks explicit usage context.

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