report_checkout_fail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It explains that reports feed Z-ZERO's self-healing loop and influence future merchant hints, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other potential side effects such as whether the report is persisted, reversible, or triggers immediate actions, and it doesn't mention auth/rate limits. The transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase serves a function. It avoids redundancy and directly guides the agent on failure_class selection.

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 5-parameter tool with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers the key context: purpose, failure_class selection, and the feedback loop. It doesn't explicitly address whether to include optional parameters like remediation_tried, but the schema covers them. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds extra semantics by instructing the agent to pick the best-matching failure_class and to use 'unknown' with an error_message if nothing fits. This decision rule is not present in the schema and clarifies the relationship between failure_class and error_message. It adds value beyond 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Report a checkout you could not complete.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools (which execute payments, list cards, etc.) by focusing on failure reporting, and it explains the downstream purpose via the self-healing loop.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: after a checkout cannot be completed. It also gives decision guidance for selecting failure_class, including the fallback to 'unknown' when nothing fits. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling set makes the unique usage obvious.

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