what-went-wrong

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the tool's behavior: takes error input and returns a diagnosis and next step. There are no hidden side effects, and the description is honest about the output. It could mention edge cases like unrecognized errors, but for a simple diagnostic tool, the transparency is adequate.

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, well-structured sentence with front-loaded imperative ('Paste') and clear outcome ('Returns a diagnosis'). Every phrase earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is concise and scannable.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), and the description covers the essential inputs and expected output. It doesn't detail the format of the diagnosis or next step, but given the tool's straightforward nature and high schema coverage, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 both parameters having descriptive text. The description does not add much beyond the schema, but the schema already explains error_text and context well. The description's phrasing mirrors the schema, adding no new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: paste an error message/status/response and receive a diagnosis with a next step. It uses specific verbs ('Paste', 'Returns') and identifies the resource ('x402 attempt'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like what-is-x402 or get-a-wallet, which are educational or setup-oriented.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you have an error message or facilitator response during an x402 attempt. It provides clear context for usage but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'if you don't have an error, use what-is-x402 instead.' This 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.