QR-код для оплаты по реквизитам

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false) by disclosing that it writes a PNG to disk, needs no network, validates recipient details, and what it returns (image, file path, payload string). These are the exact traits an agent needs for a local file-writing tool.

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?

Front-loads the core capability and standard, then the routing hint and the side effects. Dense but every clause adds information; the laundry list of supported banks is the one slightly expendable element.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return values (PNG image + file path + payload string) and the disk-write side effect. For a nested-object, 4-parameter tool, nothing essential is missing.

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%, including nested recipient fields, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds only the high-level notion that recipient/account/amount/purpose end up on the payment form; 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 and artifact (creates a payment QR per GOST R 56042 / ST00012), names the consuming apps, and explicitly distinguishes itself from invoice_create. An agent can identify the tool's output 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?

Gives a concrete use case (send in a messenger instead of bank details) and an explicit alternative with its selecting condition: 'Если нужен полноценный счёт с QR внутри — invoice_create.' The routing decision is fully resolvable from the description.

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