wapupay_fund_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that re-issuing is possible, that the funding address expires, and what is returned, but says nothing about permission requirements, whether a re-issue invalidates the previous address, or any risk of lost funds.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the recovery/refresh rationale front-loaded. Every clause 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?

There is no output schema, so the description's note that it returns the funding address and QR is genuinely load-bearing. For a one-parameter, low-complexity tool this is nearly complete, missing only the auth/permission context.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented as an order id from wapupay_create_order. The description adds only the 'existing order' framing, so the 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?

Names a specific verb (issue/re-issue) and resource (Liquid funding instructions for an existing order), and its scope is distinct from siblings like wapupay_create_order and wapupay_order_status. An agent can identify what this does without opening the 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 two explicit triggering conditions: recovering an order created without funding, and refreshing a funding address before expiry. It does not explicitly name wapupay_create_order as the alternative or state when not to use it, but the 'existing order' scoping is clear enough to route correctly.

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