Create an Ozow payment request

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and openWorld=true, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the real-money consequence, the human-confirmation precondition, the prohibition on self-confirming, and that the result is a redirectUrl the payer completes at their bank. Those are exactly the authorization and side-effect details an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it does and returns first, then the critical safety constraint, then the currency unit. No filler and the highest-risk information is front-loaded rather than buried.

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 output schema, the description usefully states that the tool returns a redirectUrl, and it covers the production safety gate. It leaves out the sandbox-vs-production behavior for the confirm parameter and gives no retry/idempotency guidance for a non-idempotent money-moving call, but is otherwise sufficient to invoke correctly.

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%, so every parameter including amount, confirm, and expiresInMinutes is already documented in the schema. The description adds only 'Amounts are in rands', which largely restates the schema's 'Amount in ZAR, e.g. 149.99', so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a payment request') and names a concrete outcome ('return a redirectUrl for the payer to complete in their bank'), which lets an agent tell it apart from siblings like ozow_cancel_payment or ozow_get_transactions. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, keeping it just short of 5.

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?

Gives clear operative guidance: in production it collects REAL money and requires explicit confirmation from the human, and the agent must never supply the confirmation phrase itself. This defines when and how to act, but does not name alternative tools or describe the sandbox/test path an agent might use first.

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