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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly states 'read-only' and explains the staged execution and the returns of fix commands for the first failing stage, giving clear stop conditions. It omits details about potential network calls or runtime, but the read-only marker is a key safety 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 three concise sentences with no waste. Each sentence provides distinct value: the staged pipeline, the output behavior, and the usage instruction.

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?

For a complex diagnostic tool, the description captures the staged flow, the output type, the stopping condition, and the read-only nature. With an output schema present, the description adequately covers all necessary context for 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 detailed parameter descriptions that include defaults and operational nuances (e.g., port 80 vs 8080). The description itself adds no extra parameter context, so the baseline 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 diagnoses a PayRam setup via a specific staged pipeline (server reachability, merchant API key, admin JWT, payment readiness). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning as the first-line check for any PayRam failure.

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?

Provides an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Run this FIRST when anything PayRam-related fails.' This is strong guidance, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, so it falls short of full coverage.

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