create_lightning_invoice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation ('Create') but doesn't specify if this is idempotent, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., network issues). For a financial tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to clarity. No wasted space or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of a financial invoice creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., invoice string, expiry time), error conditions, or dependencies like wallet availability. For this context, more detail is needed to adequately guide an agent.

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 schema fully documents all three parameters (amount_sats, description, agent). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between amount_sats and Bitcoin units or when to use the optional agent parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create') and resource ('Lightning Network invoice') with the purpose 'to receive Bitcoin payments'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'pay_lightning_invoice' (sending) and 'decode_invoice' (reading), but doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The purpose is specific and functional, though not maximally differentiated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_to_lightning_address' or 'pay_lightning_invoice', nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring an agent wallet setup. It states what the tool does but offers no contextual usage rules or exclusions.

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