generate_auth_request_cryptogram

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses required key type, rejection of AES and NoRestrictions E0 keys, exact padding expectations, the fact that APC does not pad, and even the boto3 version constraint for UnionPay. This is a model of behavioral disclosure.

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 long but genuinely dense, front-loading the purpose and then using structured sections for constraints, examples, and parameters. Every sentence and example adds decision-relevant value, so the length is justified.

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 description is nearly complete for selecting and invoking the tool: it covers key constraints, all parameters, scheme-specific behavior, and even version compatibility. The only gap is that, with no output schema present, it does not describe the exact response shape or returned fields beyond calling the result an ARQC/APC leg.

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 0%, so the description must document each parameter itself. It does so completely: key_identifier is specified as ARN or alias, transaction_data as hex with padding requirements, major_key_derivation_mode with EMV_OPTION_A/B semantics, and session_key_derivation_attributes with per-scheme JSON examples and exclusions.

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 concrete purpose: mint a test/reference ARQC, and names specific use cases such as exercising an ARQC verification path, proxy differential testing, and cross-implementation checks. It also explicitly identifies itself as the inverse of verify_auth_request_cryptogram, making the distinction from the nearest sibling clear.

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 explains when this tool is appropriate — test-vector generation rather than normal issuer-side verification — and names verify_auth_request_cryptogram as the alternative operation. It also clarifies the asymmetric relationship with verification around AES vs TDES E0 keys, which prevents misuse.

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