Send money to an email, Solana wallet or phone number. The provided email or phone can be used to claim the money of the wallet. If new user does not claim for 3 days, the money is returned to the sender.

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a write operation with potential side effects. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the claim mechanism for new users, the 3-day timeout, and automatic return of funds if unclaimed. This clarifies the tool's operational behavior without contradicting 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and follows with critical behavioral details. Every part earns its place: the main purpose, recipient options, claim mechanism, and timeout policy are all essential without redundancy.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description provides good context: it covers the action, recipient types, claim process, and timeout behavior. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, authentication requirements, or what happens after sending (e.g., confirmation details), leaving some gaps in operational completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly (to, amount, currency, title). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 implicitly provides usage context by specifying recipient types (email, Solana wallet, phone) and mentioning a 3-day claim period, which helps determine when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'pay_and_get_402_protected_url' or 'request_payment_link', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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