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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the recipes run against the merchant's API with credentials that stay local, the tool produces instructions rather than executing them ('that YOU run'), and it flags 'what not to do'. This resolves the potential confusion that recipes like restart_worker are mutating while the tool itself is read-only.

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 first sentence front-loads the value proposition well, but the trailing 17-item task list largely duplicates the schema enum, which the rules say earns no credit. The description is dense rather than bloated, but that redundant enumeration is wasted space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description still supplies the key missing context an agent needs — credential handling, entry point ('connect'), and cautionary guidance — making it complete enough 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% and the enum is fully documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds a light ordering hint ('Start with connect') and frames the enum as a task flow, but otherwise repeats the same 17 task names already in the schema.

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 deliverable: exact copy-paste recipes for day-2 operations and troubleshooting, including which endpoint, credential, curl+jq command, and how to read the answer. The verb+resource is clear, but the description never distinguishes this from siblings like payram_runbook or payram_troubleshoot, which sound like they cover the same troubleshooting ground.

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 in-tool guidance ('Start with connect', 'Omit task to list them'), which is useful for sequencing tasks. However it offers no when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance against the numerous sibling explain_*, payram_runbook, payram_doctor, and payram_troubleshoot tools, leaving the agent to guess which of these overlapping resources to pick.

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