pos-rescue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ('5 MESH/call') and the outcome (diagnosis, plan, workaround check). It does not contradict any annotations. The description adds behavioral context beyond the schema, such as the exclusivity parameter failing closed.

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 a single sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose, inputs, and outputs. It is front-loaded with 'POS Rescue' and uses dashes for clarity. Every word is necessary and no redundancy.

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 has no output schema, the description adequately describes the return value (diagnosis, step-by-step plan, workaround applicability). It covers the key inputs and their behavior. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the response format, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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% with descriptions for each inner parameter. The description adds value by explaining the exclusivity parameter's behavior ('omitted or unknown FAILS CLOSED') and contextualizing the POS and trouble parameters. This extra meaning justifies a score above the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: diagnosing POS integration troubles (Toast, Square, Clover, Micros) and providing a plan and workaround assessment. It uses specific verbs (diagnose, step-by-step plan) and resource (POS integration), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'direct-checkout' which is mentioned as a workaround.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when stuck on a POS integration. It mentions the workaround applicability, implying context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond the implicit direct-checkout workaround, which is a minor gap.

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