payware_utils_format_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description is consistent with that but adds little beyond it: it does not say what happens on validation failure, whether errors are returned or thrown, or what each mode emits. With annotations carrying the load, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the [Merchant] scope tag and the core verb. It is efficient but so terse that it omits the mode structure entirely, which is a completeness issue rather than verbosity.

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?

This is a five-parameter, multi-mode tool with a nested 'data' object and no output schema, so the description must explain what each 'type' mode produces or expects. Instead it says nothing about the transaction vs headers vs curl distinctions, leaving the agent to infer output shape and validation behavior from the schema alone.

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 100%, so every parameter including the type, method and jwtToken enums is already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'structure and headers' loosely maps to the headers and transaction modes but adds no syntax, defaults or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 pair (format and validate) plus the resource (payware API requests) and the output concern (structure and headers). However, the tool actually spans three distinct modes (transaction, headers, curl) and the one-line description never distinguishes those, nor does it separate itself from the sibling payware_utils_format_json_deterministic.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is present. An agent is not told when to pick this over payware_utils_format_json_deterministic or payware_generate_code_example, and with a three-way 'type' discriminator it is not told which mode suits which situation.

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