create_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether this is a write operation, what happens to the card data, security implications, idempotency, or the format of the returned token. Since it's a financial tool, this lack of transparency is notable.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It states the essential purpose in eight words, making it easy to scan and remember.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must compensate, but it is very thin. It doesn't explain what the token looks like, how the return_url is used, what happens after tokenization, or any prerequisites such as requiring a merchant account. For a tool with 5 required parameters, this is insufficiently complete.

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% with all five parameters individually described. The description adds no extra parameter-specific insight beyond the schema. However, the 'for recurring payments' context hints at the role of return_url (returning after tokenization for recurring setup), but this is minimal. Baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Tokenize' with a clear resource 'a card' and a purpose 'for recurring payments'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like charge_token, which consumes tokens, and get_payment_methods. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'for recurring payments' provides clear context on when the tool should be used, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The relationship to charge_token is implied but not stated. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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