b2c_payment_and_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the operation waits for a callback and returns a receipt number on success, but it does not disclose failure modes, timeout behavior, callback semantics, or any side effects. For a money-moving tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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, compact sentence that immediately states the action, the waiting behavior, and the success return value. Every word serves a purpose; there is no fluff or 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?

The tool is complex (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), but the description only covers the success path. It does not explain what happens on failure, how timeoutSeconds affects behavior, prerequisites like shortCode setup, or the structure of the callback. This is insufficient for an agent to use the tool confidently in varied scenarios.

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 only 38% (3 out of 8 parameters described), and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not mention phoneNumber, amount, commandId, or any of the other parameters. The description is silent on how to use the tool's inputs, leaving the agent without adequate guidance for the 5 undocumented parameters.

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 clearly states a specific action: 'Pay money out to a customer' and distinguishes this tool from siblings by explicitly adding 'and wait for the result callback, returning the receipt number on success.' This sets it apart from b2c_payment and b2b_payment, which likely do not wait for a callback.

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 implies this tool is for use when a synchronous result is needed (waiting for callback), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over b2c_payment or provide exclusions. The 'wait' behavior is a clear contextual signal, but no direct comparison or alternative is mentioned.

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