Оплата счёта

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that this operation moves real money, validates fields against a regex before sending, computes a commission, shows a payment confirmation button, may reject a payment without customer solicitation, and cannot itself confirm the payment — the agent should check list_operations. This is far richer than the annotations alone.

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 long but tightly packed with warnings and operational requirements, not filler. It front-loads the purpose and the “real money” risk, then flows through input requirements, confirmation, post-payment verification, and the force caveat. Some sentences could be clearer, such as the confusing “TBANK_CONFIRM_ABOVE” threshold, but all content earns its place.

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?

For a financial mutation tool with a complex confirmation flow, the description covers the essential context: where the input comes from, validation behavior, user confirmation UI, post-payment verification, risks of wrong account numbers, and the strict meaning of force. An output schema exists, so it need not restate return values, and this description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Even though schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates for the core parameters: provider_id and fields are explicitly described as coming from payment_providers, with a JSON example and a warning against guessing field names. It also explains force assignment. Less critical optional parameters like group and from_account are not covered, but the most important ones are explained.

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 opens with the explicit purpose “Оплатить счёт” (pay a bill) and lists concrete categories: utilities, communications, internet, fines, and taxes. This clearly identifies both the resource and the action, distinguishing it from transfer, payment_qr, or confirmation utilities.

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?

It gives strong when-to-use guidance: pull provider_id and fields from payment_providers, verify post-payment with list_operations, and only fall back to force=True when the user confirms the previous payment failed. It does not explicitly contrast with direct sibling payment tools, but it does cover the critical pre-conditions and confirmation flow.

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