IMD quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses experimental/unstable status, warns there is no warranty, reveals the hidden side effect (an order is created), and clarifies the critical state fact that nothing is paid. It still omits auth/permission requirements and any rate or expiry behavior for the created order.

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 warning text is duplicated and malformed ('Experimental: Experimental'), and the actual purpose sentence sits fourth, after boilerplate, so the definition is not front-loaded. Total length is moderate and each sentence carries some information, but the poor ordering and redundant opening cost it.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must cover purpose, side effects, and returns; it does cover all three (creates an order, returns price and order id, nothing is paid) and links to imd_capabilities. It falls short on the surrounding workflow — how the returned order id relates to imd_pay and imd_order_status — and on any auth or failure expectations for a tool explicitly flagged as possibly broken.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema cannot: the 'input' object's free-form schema is derived at runtime from the server's x-imd-actions, and the 'action' value must come from imd_capabilities. That explains the otherwise opaque additionalProperties object and points the agent at where to resolve it.

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 core sentence 'Quote a paid action only — creates the order and returns the price and order id. Nothing is paid' states a specific verb (quote), a specific resource (a paid action), and its observable effects, which distinguishes it from the pay-side sibling imd_pay. The signal is clear, though it is buried behind experimental boilerplate rather than front-loaded.

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 constrains usage to paid actions ('Quote a paid action only'), signals a probe-then-pay workflow, and advises caution ('read the code, start with small amounts'), so the when-to-use is implied. However, it never names the alternative (e.g. imd_pay) or states explicitly that this must precede payment, leaving the routing to inference.

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