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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, reports gaps, and does not create wallets—critical side-effect information that lets an agent invoke it safely without expecting mutations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and specific checks. Every word earns its place, covering what it does, what it reports, and what it does not do, with zero filler.

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's simple parameter schema and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's scope and safety profile. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over closely related siblings like payram_doctor or assess_payram_project, which slightly reduces completeness.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single optional parameter externalPlatformId, including a clear description and auto-resolve behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 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 the tool's function: it diagnoses payment readiness gaps per blockchain, listing specific checks (missing deposit wallet, disabled chain/currency, stopped listener worker). It differentiates from siblings by focusing narrowly on readiness and explicitly saying it does not create wallets, which distinguishes it from setup tools.

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 provides clear context: use as a read-only diagnostic, and it points to the CLI for wallet setup, effectively giving an alternative for actual setup. It does not explicitly compare to sibling diagnostic tools like payram_doctor, but the 'read-only' and 'does not create wallets' exclusions give practical guidance.

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