verify_connection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral constraints such as 'Do not invent a code' and 'Do not spend until granted', plus post-success behavior in testMode (telling the owner via sayToUserRu). It also mentions opening recovery.openUrl when NEED_BROWSER_GRANT. It does not mention potential side effects like persisting credentials or return values, but the constraints and flow steps are 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 a bit longer than necessary but every sentence adds value: primary purpose, triggers, edge cases, and cautions. It is front-loaded with the main action and then flows through conditional logic. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'pairing code is optional' repeats the schema), but overall it is efficient and structured.

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 is part of a multi-step flow, the description covers when to call, how to handle failures (NEED_BROWSER_GRANT), prerequisites (no ap_ yet → begin_agent_link), optional parameters, and post-success actions (testMode). It references sibling tools appropriately and provides sufficient guidance for an agent to use it correctly without needing extra details.

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 coverage is 100% and the description only repeats that the pairing code is optional. It adds no new meaning beyond the schema's 'Optional 6-character pairing code from the AgentPay cabinet'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 finishes the AgentPay connection ('Finish AgentPay connect'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying triggers ('Call when the user says «проверь MCP» or after poll_agent_link returned apiKey and you installed it') and the alternative begin_agent_link for starting the flow. This prevents confusion with polling or other connection steps.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use conditions and exclusions: it says to call this tool after poll_agent_link returns an apiKey, and explicitly warns to call begin_agent_link first if no ap_ yet. It also states pairing code is optional and gives handling for NEED_BROWSER_GRANT, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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