send_invoice

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no further behavioral details such as side effects, payment flow implications, or requirements. It merely restates the core action without disclosing any additional traits that would help the agent anticipate outcomes or prerequisites.

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 that front-loads the essential action and purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and is not tautological, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool complexity (29 parameters, no output schema, and poor schema descriptions), a one-line description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain return values, required setup (e.g., provider token), edge cases, or any additional context needed to use the tool safely and effectively.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 10%, the description carries the burden to explain key parameters, but it mentions none. The description does not clarify what fields like 'prices', 'currency', 'payload', or 'provider_token' mean or how they relate to sending an invoice. This leaves the agent with almost no semantic understanding of the 29 parameters.

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 'Send an invoice for payment' clearly states the action (send) and the resource (invoice), and 'for payment' adds context about the purpose. It is specific enough to differentiate from tools like 'create_invoice_link' at a basic level, though it does not explicitly mention that it sends to a chat or how it differs from similar payment-related tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create_invoice_link' or 'send_message'. There are no usage examples, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selecting this tool appropriately.

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