Check Hosted Payment Readiness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying it is a 'free local' check that 'verifies...without exposing keypair bytes' and lists what it checks, enhancing safety understanding. No contradiction with annotations.

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 efficient sentences: first states purpose, second lists checks and usage guidance. No wasted words; front-loaded with key information.

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 simple readiness check tool with output schema present, the description covers all needed context: what it checks, when to call, and safety guarantees. Complete for its complexity.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (endpoint default, profile optional). The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 as a 'free local readiness check for hosted SAP MCP paid/write workflows' and lists specific verifications (bridge, profile, key, balances, limits) without exposing keypair bytes. It distinguishes from siblings by stating it should be called before paid tools, swaps, SNS registration, Metaplex minting, or SAP registry writes.

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?

Explicitly says 'Agents should call this before paid tools, swaps, SNS registration, Metaplex minting, or SAP registry writes,' providing clear context for use. Missing explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the positive guidance is strong.

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