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

Annotations already declare this is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful context by naming the returned fields and clarifying that the caller must supply parameter values for next_actions, which helps set execution 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical is compact and clarifies an important behavioral detail without bloating the description.

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 read-only tool with no output schema and one optional parameter, the description is adequate but thin. It names the returned fields but does not explain their structure, conditions, or how next_actions should be interpreted.

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 only parameter is already documented as an optional token to inspect. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states a specific purpose: explaining the next merchant action and returning current_step, required fields, and ordered next_actions. It is clearer than a generic status tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like update_program_status.

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?

Usage is implied by 'next merchant action,' suggesting it should be called when the merchant needs workflow guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings such as update_program_status or generate_program_defaults.

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