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

The description discloses the behavioral effect (authorizing a charge) and required inputs for safe execution. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds context about needing the delegation token and polling afterwards, with no contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the step and condition, no extraneous words. Every sentence contributes essential information (when, what, requirement, post-action).

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 output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers the use case: it explains the triggering condition, required token, and follow-up polling. No gaps remain for safe and correct invocation.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds value by reinforcing that buyer_delegation_token must be the same as used in initiate_payment. However, it does not detail every parameter, but the schema handles that adequately, so a slight above-baseline score is appropriate.

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 it is step 3 for mobile_money only, used when initiate_payment returns action "submit_otp". It identifies the specific verb 'Submits' and resource 'one-time password', and distinguishes from sibling tools like submit_delegation_otp by scoping to payment flow.

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 (step 3, conditional on action), what is required (same buyer_delegation_token), and post-invocation steps (poll get_payment_status). This gives clear guidance on usage context and next actions.

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