impreza_topup_payment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes the return values (address, amount, URI) and gives a security warning about verifying details. It implies a non-destructive read operation, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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, fitting into a single paragraph without wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and then branches into variants and security notes. While it could be broken into shorter sentences, it remains clear and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: the prerequisite call, parameter behavior, return components, and a security advisory. It is complete enough for an agent to use 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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining that omitting 'crypto' lists options and that 'invoice_id' comes from a specific prior call, which enhances semantic understanding beyond the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: getting crypto payment details for a top-up invoice. It specifies the outputs (address, amount, URI) and distinguishes between calling with and without the 'crypto' parameter, which sets it apart from potentially similar tools.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: call 'impreza_topup' first for invoice_id, then this tool. It explains the behavior for both cases of the 'crypto' parameter and includes security instructions for verification. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear.

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