События последних оплат

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description then adds genuinely useful context: records are redacted and contain no secrets, the data comes from a local events file, and the header reveals total count so the user can see how many events are omitted by limit. There is 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?

The description is compact and information-dense: purpose, safety redaction, source path, and parameter semantics are all covered in two short sentences. There is no filler and the diagnostic intent is front-loaded before the limit explanation.

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 single-parameter read-only diagnostics tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it explains the event kinds covered, the source file, the no-secrets policy, possible diagnostic use, and how to interpret the output header. Nothing essential is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the only parameter: limit controls how many of the latest events are shown, 0 means show all, and the output header exposes the total count. The distinction between limit and omitted events is exactly what an agent needs when invoking the tool.

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 identifies the resource: recent redacted events related to checkout actions and session refresh, stored in a known local file. It says this is for diagnostics, and even specifies the two intended diagnostic actions: reconstruct an attempt or find the last confirmed step. This distinguishes it from operational tools like pay_bill or confirm_payment.

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?

It states when to use the tool: for diagnostics, reconstructing an attempt, or finding the last confirmed step after a payment flow. It does not explicitly compare itself to a sibling alternative such as debug_report, nor does it give clear when-not-to-use guidance, so it misses the top score.

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