Request a MoMo payment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds real value on top: it discloses the return value (referenceId), the PENDING-until-approved lifecycle, and the critical safety constraint that production moves real money and the confirmation phrase must never be supplied autonomously. That last point is behavior an agent cannot infer from any structured field.

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 waste. The action and its result lead, then the lifecycle and safety constraint follow in priority order.

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, and the description compensates by naming the referenceId return and the PENDING state, plus the polling path. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and responsibly.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema for the `confirm` parameter by framing it as a human-authorization gate the agent must not self-supply, which is semantic guidance the schema's 'must be exactly ...' text does not convey.

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 and resource ('Ask a subscriber to approve a payment on their phone') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling momo_payment_status by naming it as the follow-up polling step. An agent knows exactly what this initiates 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to momo_payment_status for follow-up and states the production precondition (explicit human confirmation). It stops short of naming any alternative initiation path or when-not-to-call condition, but the sequencing and gating guidance is clear.

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