init_recurring_parent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions building a checkout URL and the post-payment usage, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects (e.g., does it create a record?), authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description is adequate for a basic understanding but lacks depth.

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 highly concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core action and follow up with the workflow context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the purpose of many parameters, usage prerequisites, or what the agent should do with the returned checkout URL. The presence of an output schema is noted but does not compensate for the missing parameter context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 11 parameters, the description only references 'inv_id' as the invoice ID to cite. It does not explain 'out_sum', 'merchant_login', 'password1', or other optional parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb 'Build a checkout URL' and identifies the resource as a recurring parent. It also distinguishes the tool's role in the recurring payment flow, contrasting with the sibling tool 'recurring_charge' for subsequent charges. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 implicit usage guidance by indicating the workflow: after this tool, use 'recurring_charge' for subsequent charges. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions relative to other sibling tools like 'create_invoice' or 'build_split_invoice', leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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