check_payment

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

The description adds substantial context beyond annotations: it explains the approve/decline outcome, the consequence of decline, and the important caveat that the book's limits are self-declared and do not grant external authority. It does not explain non-idempotency or what state the non-read-only call may change, but annotations already flag those hints.

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 three tight sentences with zero waste. The call timing, outcome, decline handling, and authority caveat are each front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 five-parameter payment-check tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description gives strong usage and behavioral guidance but leaves parameter meaning largely unexplained. It does say the return is approve or decline with reasons, but an agent still lacks enough detail about the required and optional inputs.

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 0% for five parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it never defines amount_minor, currency, nonce, intent_id, or counterparty. It only indirectly gestures at an open intent and payment limits, leaving the actual parameter semantics undocumented.

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 states a specific check: whether a payment is inside an open intent and within the book's limits, returning approve or decline. It also distinguishes the tool's role from siblings by placing it after record_intent and immediately before paying.

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?

Usage is explicit: call this after record_intent and just before paying, and if the result is decline, do not pay. The sequencing and the action to take on decline are both stated directly.

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