revclamp_evaluate_ghost_usage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add important domain behavior: fail-closed pagination and a 0-14 day dunning grace window. It still omits whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, and how incomplete or paginated subscription data affects the result.

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 definition is a single dense sentence with the core evaluation purpose front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition, and every clause adds domain-specific information.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify the decision result and key parameter behavior. It does not explain what the evaluation returns, how fail-closed behavior manifests, or how the two timestamp parameters differ, leaving significant gaps for a 6-parameter tool.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate more. It contextualizes subscriptions, pagination via 'fail-closed,' and the dunning grace range, but it does not explain customerId or distinguish occurredAtSec from usageTimestampSec.

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 gives a specific verb ('Evaluate') and a precise resource/decision ('unpaid ghost usage') scoped to multi-subscription Stripe state. It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling revenue/compliance tools beyond the unique 'ghost usage' framing.

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 intended usage is implied by 'Evaluate whether ... is unpaid ghost usage,' so an agent can infer when this tool is relevant. However, there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or comparisons to the sibling tools.

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