Request Payment Authorization

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

With annotations providing safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds behavioral context: returns a signed grant or violated rule, and requires downstream verification. This goes beyond annotations by explaining the ALLOW/DENY outcome and the mandatory grant check. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then return behavior, then usage directive. No filler; each sentence adds distinct information.

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?

The description covers the essential behavioral contract (authorize, return ALLOW/DENY, require grant, use before payment) for a 7-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations. It doesn't cover failure modes beyond the DENY rule, but output schema likely covers return specifics, so completeness is good.

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?

All 7 parameters have 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so a 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('authorize') and resource ('payment action against the active Fidacy mandate'), and clarifies it returns ALLOW/DENY. It distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_mandate or assess_action by focusing on payment authorization.

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 explicitly states when to call it ('before any payment; never pay without it') and imposes a downstream requirement (MUST require the grant). It does not discuss exclusions or alternative tools when not applicable, 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.