Verify payment revenue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by guaranteeing that no revenue amounts or customer data are returned, which is an important privacy/redaction behavior beyond what annotations alone convey.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes the key limitation immediately. Every phrase contributes meaningful information with no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description is nearly complete. It covers intent, scope, and safety constraints; the only minor gap is that it does not explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean or status object), which would help since there is no output schema.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with projectId already described as 'Clarvivo project ID'. The description does not add further parameter-level detail, so the schema carries the semantic weight and the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('payment webhook') and adds two precise dimensions: proof-of-life and attribution coverage. It also explicitly excludes returning revenue amounts or customer data, which clearly differentiates it from revenue-related siblings like connect_revenue.

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 conveys clear context: use this when you need to verify payment webhook liveness and attribution coverage. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like verify_installation.

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