q402_request_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that the tool is non-monetary, creates a shareable request, returns a req_ id and /pay link, defaults the recipient to the Agent Wallet, and supports billing oneself. It could mention edge cases or error behavior, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 concise and efficiently structured. Every sentence conveys essential information: what the tool does, key behavioral caveats, return values, and integration with sibling tools. There is no filler 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description effectively communicates return values (req_ id and /pay link), default behaviors, trial key compatibility, and how to use the tool in a workflow (with q402_request_status and q402_request_pay). This makes the tool self-explanatory for an agent.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with individual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantic context, particularly that the recipient defaults to Q402_AGENT_WALLET_ADDRESS and that you can 'bill yourself with just an amount'. This goes beyond the schema's dry documentation.

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 tool's primary function: it publishes a Q402 payment request (invoice/bill), explicitly distinguishing it from payment execution tools. It uses specific language like 'Publish' and 'creates a shareable request to RECEIVE money', and even names the sibling tool q402_request_pay that will actually pay it.

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 provides strong usage context: it notes that no funds are moved, no confirmation is needed, a Trial key works, and suggests pairing with q402_request_status for polling. It also implies the alternative of using q402_request_pay for actual payment. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool, such as for immediate fund transfers.

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