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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond those: it is free, it reports data freshness, and it guarantees no customer/order/payment identifiers are returned because the store never sends any. This privacy and cost context is not conveyed by the annotations or schema.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: the core question, the return payload list, the ordering guidance, and the data-privacy guarantee. The most decision-relevant fact is front-loaded, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or title.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations are rich, the description still adds the missing decision context: it tells when to call this tool, what the expensive alternative depends on, and what identifiers are intentionally absent. An agent can correctly decide to invoke it and interpret its role in the larger workflow.

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 single optional parameter `window_seconds` is fully documented in the schema with default, min, and max (100% schema description coverage). The description mentions 'the window' but adds no new parametric meaning; the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the burden.

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 answers a precise question ('is anything wrong...?') and lists exactly what the tool returns, including the decision flag `diagnosis_recommended`. It stands apart from sibling tools by being the cheap first-call health snapshot rather than a risk check, full diagnosis, or recovery verification.

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 is explicit that this should be called FIRST because it's cheap and tells whether the expensive diagnosis would have anything to work with. This gives a strong ordering rule and a clear when-not-to-call-the-diagnosis condition. It does not, however, name the sibling tools or spell out when to use check_checkout_change_risk or verify_revenue_recovery, so I can't give a full 5.

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