order_payment_slip

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries full behavioral burden: it does disclose the authentication requirement ('Requires login'), which is genuine context an agent needs. It does not say whether the slip is returned as binary/PDF, a URL, or structured data, nor whether the order must already be placed or authorized.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource, then the auth prerequisite. No filler, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally terse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool is a simple one-parameter read, keeping complexity low. However, the undefined order_id and the unknown slip delivery format leave gaps that the description should have closed.

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?

The single parameter order_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning — it never states the identifier format, where it comes from (e.g., my_orders or last_order), or whether it must be an authorized order.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: retrieves a payment slip (QR-bill) for an order. The parenthetical 'QR-bill' disambiguates it from sibling order_invoice and order_detail, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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 when-to-use guidance at all. 'Requires login' signals a prerequisite but does not say when to call this versus order_invoice, order_authorization_state, or checkout_payment_options, and gives no exclusion conditions.

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