recurring_charge

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the charge is 'silent' and that 'OK<InvId>' means accepted but not captured, which is a critical behavioral trait. It also directs verification via check_payment.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds critical usage details. The response format and verification step are clearly front-loaded.

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?

While the description covers the core usage (prerequisite, response meaning, verification), it omits documentation for most parameters. The output schema may explain return values, but the description does not address authorization, idempotency, or other behavioral aspects. Adequate but incomplete.

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 9 parameters (3 required), the description only clarifies previous_inv_id. It does not explain new_inv_id, out_sum, description, merchant_login, password1, receipt_items, receipt_sno, or algorithm, leaving their semantics to the agent.

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 action ('Silently charge a recurring subscription payment') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like init_recurring_parent and check_payment, which are referenced for prerequisite and follow-up.

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 states the prerequisite (previous_inv_id must be from an already-paid parent) and provides follow-up guidance (verify via check_payment). Also explains the response meaning and what it does NOT imply (capture).

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