Pay Multiple Lightning Addresses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only discloses that payments run 'in parallel'. For a money-moving tool it says nothing about partial-failure behavior, whether one bad address aborts the batch, auth/spending requirements, reversibility, or rate limits.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and mode, with no filler. Slightly under-specified rather than verbose, but 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?

A batched payment operation with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain failure semantics, return shape, and constraints; the description supplies none of that and even leaves the max-10/concurrency limits to the schema.

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 both parameters (payments array, concurrency) are documented in the schema. The description's 'each payment specifies address and amount' merely restates the schema and omits the optional comment field, so it adds no meaning beyond structured data.

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 ('Pay') and resource ('multiple Lightning addresses') plus the parallel execution mode, which is more than a restatement of the title. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular sibling pay_lightning_address, but never names pay_lightning_address or pay_batch to make the boundary explicit.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related siblings pay_lightning_address (single) and pay_batch. The agent must infer from the plural name alone that this is the multi-address variant.

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