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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that no external message is sent, that the caller executes the action, and that execution costs $0.50 by default via x402 Base USDC. This is significant behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not mention failure modes, idempotency, or what happens if payment fails, but the disclosed cost and execution model are strong.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core transformation and outcome, followed by the critical execution and cost details. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete: it states the purpose, the execution model, and the cost. It lacks guidance on how the parameters influence the decision packet and what the returned action looks like, but the core call context is well covered. The sibling tool is not mentioned, which is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any of the 10 parameters beyond the event types listed in the enum. The description's list of event types mirrors the enum, adding no new meaning. It does not clarify fields like priorAttempts, preferredChannel, or averageOpportunityValue. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description adds some context (the overall purpose) but leaves parameter semantics to 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Turn... into') and names the exact resource (missed call, stale lead, unanswered quote, appointment no-show, failed payment) and the output (prioritized recovery decision packet). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling inspect_revenue_opportunity by emphasizing action execution and cost.

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 implies when to use it: when a revenue-affecting event has occurred and a recovery action is needed. It explicitly states that no external message is sent and the caller executes the returned action, which clarifies a key usage boundary. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling or state when to use inspect_revenue_opportunity instead.

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