Прямая оплата через СБП

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains that the tool creates a payment and returns a redirect link, and it adds important constraints: rubles-only, no currency field, and H2H integration required. It stops short of describing failure behavior or link lifetime, 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 two short sentences, fully front-loaded with the primary purpose Apaand contains no filler or redundant repetition. Every sentence adds a distinct piece of information.

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?

The tool has 10 parameters, a nested deviceData object, no output schema, and no annotations, so a two-sentence description is insufficient. Missing information includes the meaning of several optional parameters, the expected structure of a successful response beyond sbpLink, and error or authentication requirements.

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 only 40%, and the description does not compensate for the six undocumented optional parameters such as orderId, email, phone, lastName, firstName, and description. The only parameter-level insight added is the rubles-only constraint, which clarifies the amount field.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Создаёт платёж по СБП' (creates an SBP payment). It clearly names the output sbpLink and the payment method, distinguishing it from sibling payment tools like wata_acq_pay_card and wata_acq_pay_tpay.

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 gives a useful precondition ('Требуется прямая интеграция H2H') and a restriction ('Только рубли'), but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The usage context is mostly implied from the tool name and description.

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