ratiba_create_and_wait

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does state that the tool waits for approval and returns the settled outcome, which is useful. However, it omits important behavioral details such as timeout behavior (timeoutSeconds parameter), what happens if approval fails, and any side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 (12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), but the description only covers the basic purpose and result. It misses essential context like timeout handling, failure modes, and guidance on when to use this vs. ratiba_create, making it incomplete for reliable agent invocation.

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?

The schema covers only 58% of parameters, leaving several (shortCode, callbackUrl, transactionDesc, accountReference) without descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the action ('Create an M-Pesa Ratiba standing order') and the unique blocking behavior ('wait for the customer to approve it'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like ratiba_create, which likely does not wait.

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 the tool is used when you need to wait for customer approval and receive the settled outcome. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., 'use ratiba_create if you don't need to wait') or provide exclusions.

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