what-went-wrong

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only diagnostic operation (returns diagnosis) but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or mention any permissions or rate limits. While the behavior is implied, explicit transparency is lacking.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and inputs. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action ('Paste an error message') and clearly states the output ('Returns a diagnosis').

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's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete enough for an AI agent to understand when and how to use it. It covers what to provide and what to expect, leaving no obvious gaps.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, and the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: for error_text, it specifies examples ('error message, response body, or status'), and for context, it provides illustrative examples. This enriches the schema's basic definitions.

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: taking an error message from an x402 attempt and returning a diagnosis and next step. It uses specific verbs (paste, returns) and resource (x402 error diagnosis), distinguishing it from sibling tools which are mostly explanatory or configuration-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 explicitly says to use the tool when you have an error from an x402 attempt, providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, which would strengthen the guidance.

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