IMD pay

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so: it discloses dry-run default (IMD_DRY_RUN), per-request and per-day caps (IMD_MAX_PER_REQUEST, IMD_MAX_PER_DAY), the confirm gate, the refusal condition on asset/payTo/amount, and a no-warranty experimental warning. This is materially more than the schema 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?

Front-loaded experimental warning, then the core purpose, then the guardrails. Every sentence carries distinct information. Slightly dense with three env-var names stacked in one clause, but nothing is padding.

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 2-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers safety (dry-run), limits, preconditions (quote provenance, confirm), and failure behavior (refuses mismatched challenges). An agent has enough to invoke it safely without reading the source.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (orderId, confirm) are already documented in the schema with 'Must be true to pay' and the provenance of orderId. The description adds the confirm gate conceptually but no format, constraint, or semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Pay a quoted order from imd_quote') and explicitly scopes it to orders produced by the sibling imd_quote, distinguishing it from imd_quote itself and from imd_order_status. An agent can pick this apart from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context: it consumes an output from imd_quote, requires confirm: true, and refuses mismatched challenges. It does not name explicit 'when not to use' alternatives (e.g. use imd_order_status to check instead of pay), but the prerequisite-and-refusal conditions give strong routing guidance.

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