tochka_payment

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

Annotations only include openWorldHint: true, indicating possible side effects. The description adds that the operation creates a payment and returns a signing URL, which clarifies the two-step nature. No contradictions.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a behavioral note, and a parameter list with constraints. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Although the output schema exists and is not described, the description covers the purpose, signing requirement, and all parameter constraints. It lacks error handling or prerequisite info, but is sufficient for a competent 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by listing all parameters with clear constraints (e.g., '10-12 digits' for INN, '9 digits' for BIC), adding significant meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 'Create outgoing payment order (I pay someone). Returns signing URL.' This uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes the tool from siblings like tochka_acquiring_payment_create, which handles incoming payments.

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 mentions that 'The payment must be signed in Tochka internet bank to be processed,' providing a key usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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