paybot_commission_inspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape (aggregate totals + rate, paginated ledger) and filtering, but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it requires auth, or whether it has 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; it states the tool's purpose and output structure immediately. Every phrase contributes to understanding what the tool returns.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully names the two return components (summary and ledger) and notes filtering/pagination. It is reasonably complete for a read-oriented inspection tool, though it omits usage context and safety guarantees that annotations would normally cover.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, including defaults, enums, and date formats. The description only groups the ledger as 'filterable, paginated' and adds no parameter syntax or constraints beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 ('Inspect commission') and describes the two outputs (aggregate summary and filterable ledger). It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like paybot_history or paybot_balance, so an agent must infer that this is commission-specific.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance. 'For transparency' implies a reporting purpose but does not tell an agent when to choose this over paybot_history or other siblings.

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