finance_stripe_subscription_health

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, data mutation, or destructive potential, despite the annotation destructiveHint: true. It only mentions routing through a dispatcher, which is irrelevant to behavioral transparency. No contradiction exists, but the absence of disclosure is a major gap.

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 short but includes boilerplate about 'JWT, tenant, and company scope' that does not add value. The Args section is present but overly generic, and the overall structure is repetitive and not informative.

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 tool's apparent complexity (finance domain action with structured inputs), the description is severely incomplete. It provides no information about the output, expected input format, side effects, or any domain-specific context that would help an agent use it effectively.

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 description gives minimal meaning to parameters: message is 'free-text objective' and inputs is 'optional JSON string of structured inputs'. While this is slightly informative, it does not explain what kind of objective or what structure is expected, leaving the parameters largely ambiguous.

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 merely restates the tool name ('Run the finance domain agent action finance_stripe_subscription_health') without explaining what subscription health entails or what the tool actually does. It fails to distinguish this from the many stripe_* sibling tools, leaving the agent with no clear purpose beyond the name itself.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stripe_list_invoices or stripe_dispatch. The description lacks any context about use cases, prerequisites, or conditions under which this action should be invoked.

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