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

Beyond the basic annotations (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, destructive=false), the description discloses critical behavioral traits: it 'Checks your processing agreement for payment exclusivity first and fails closed', it runs on claude-haiku-4.5 and names the model in the response, and it costs 5 MESH/call. These details are not present in the annotations and materially inform the agent's expectations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: hook, service promise, safety/fail-closed behavior, model info, alternative, input contract, output contract, and pricing. It is front-loaded with the user-facing purpose and flows logically through operational details with no fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description explicitly lists the return shape: '{rescue: {diagnosis, plan, workaround, cautions}, exclusivity_checked, model, next}.' It also covers input, alternative model choice, cost, and the fail-closed safety guarantee. For a generative diagnostic tool with nested input, this is highly complete.

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% and the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly (including the exclusivity fail-closed behavior and aliases). The description merely restates the input contract ('Input: {trouble: string, pos?: string, exclusivity?: 'yes'|'no'|'unknown'}') without adding new semantic meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Stuck on a POS integration... get a diagnosis, a step-by-step plan, and whether the owner-direct checkout workaround applies.' This distinguishes it from siblings like pos-rescue-smart (same contract, different model) and direct-checkout (which would actually execute the workaround), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It gives a clear trigger condition ('Stuck on a POS integration...') and names an explicit alternative ('pos-rescue-smart runs the identical contract on claude-sonnet-5'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or reference direct-checkout as the execution alternative, so it stops short of a full when/when-not spec.

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