Evercraft Website Launch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to restate them. It adds a valuable domain-specific guarantee ('Creates no charge') that goes beyond the annotations and reassures agents about side effects.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core behavior is stated first, and the side-effect clarification is a meaningful second sentence that earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what is returned (tiers and prices) and that no charge occurs, though it does not describe the response format, which is minor given the simple scope.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema-description gap to compensate for. The description's mention of what is being read ('tiers and prices') gives useful context even though there is nothing to document about parameter usage.

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 ('Read'), names the resource ('fixed website-service tiers and prices'), and clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tools, which handle order status and checkout. Even without the title, an agent would correctly infer the tool's purpose.

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 clearly establishes that this tool is for reading current offers, and the sibling names imply the alternatives are for order status and checkout. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name a specific alternative.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavior: it independently verifies Stripe payment, but only when a checkout session exists. This conditional behavior is not captured by the annotations and gives the agent a clearer picture of what the tool does beyond simply reading state.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action (read order state) and adds the secondary verification behavior. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It conveys the core behavior and conditional verification. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., order status fields, payment verification boolean) or how errors are handled. This is a minor gap for a tool this simple.

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?

The schema provides no description for order_id (0% coverage), and the description does not explain what order_id is, its format, or any domain meaning. While the tool name and description suggest it identifies a service order, the agent is left to infer that. The description should have explicitly connected order_id to the order being read.

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 action (read order state) and a specific resource (website service order), plus an additional capability (independently verify Stripe payment). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_website_service_offers and prepare_website_service_checkout) by focusing on order status and payment verification, not offers or checkout creation.

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 usage for checking order status and verifying payment, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling alternatives. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are given, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the sibling names alone.

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

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description adds a valuable behavioral trait: 'Checkout creation is not payment proof,' which corrects a likely assumption that preparing checkout equals receiving payment. It also emphasizes the human-confirmation prerequisite. It doesn't discuss idempotency or side-effect details, but the added caveat is meaningful.

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 with no filler: the first front-loads the action and precondition, the second adds a crucial caveat. Every clause earns its place, and the structure supports quick scanning.

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?

Covers the key precondition and the non-payment caveat, which are core to correct usage. But with no output schema and a short description, the agent has no idea what the tool returns (e.g., checkout URL, ID) or what happens after checkout creation. This is a clear gap for a tool that creates a resource.

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%, and the description mentions none of the 8 parameters. The description does not compensate for the schema's silence, leaving the agent to infer semantics purely from parameter names like user_confirmed_payment and service_plan. Some names are self-explanatory, but the description itself adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 verb and resource ('prepare the secure checkout'), names the triggering precondition ('human explicitly agrees to pay'), and adds a differentiating caveat ('checkout creation is not payment proof'). The sibling tools are get_* operations on offers and order status, so this action-oriented prepare tool is clearly distinct without needing to open the schema.

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 trigger condition ('After the human explicitly agrees to pay for a selected website service'), which tells the agent exactly when to call. However, it does not name sibling tools or state when-not-to-use, so it captures the 'clear context' level but not the full 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' level.

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