sezzle_audit_auth_capture_flow

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not disclose what the tool returns, what constitutes a 'deterministic flow defect,' or how results are presented. With no output schema, the description carries a heavier burden and fails to provide necessary runtime behavior details.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It takes minimal space to convey the general purpose, which is appropriate for a high-level summary.

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?

Despite the complex input schema with numerous order fields and the absence of an output schema, the description offers no information about the audit rules, return format, or edge-case behavior. It is far too sparse to fully support correct invocation and result interpretation for a tool of this complexity.

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 0% and the description only mentions 'authorization, capture, refund, reference, and currency state' without mapping to the actual parameters 'orders' and 'now'. The 'now' parameter (likely a reference timestamp) is entirely unexplained. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond inferable field names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Audit') and a resource ('supplied authorization, capture, refund, reference, and currency state'), clearly indicating the tool's scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling detect tools like sezzle_detect_stuck_authorizations, but the broader 'deterministic flow defects' framing implies a comprehensive audit rather than a single-issue detector.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as the specific detect tools or validation tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended scenarios; the description simply states what the tool does without explaining when it is the best choice.

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