Request Grant

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose key behavioral traits: 'made interactive' and 'return an approval URL.' However, it omits any mention of side effects, required authentication, or follow-up steps, which is a notable gap for a grant-initiation tool.

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 primary action, and no filler. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and scannable.

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?

The tool has three parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description offers minimal context. It fails to explain the grant lifecycle (e.g., that an approval URL must be used with continue_grant), leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters (authServer, access, interact). It neither defines the purpose of each field nor maps them to the grant workflow, forcing the agent to rely solely on the raw schema.

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 identifies the tool as requesting an Open Payments grant and highlights the interactive nature with an approval URL for outgoing payment grants. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like continue_grant and payment creation tools, though it doesn't explicitly frame its role in the broader grant flow.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like continue_grant. The description mentions a specific behavior (interactive grants) but lacks any conditional context or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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