sezzle_generate_go_live_checklist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'deterministic,' which is a meaningful behavioral trait beyond annotations, and clarifies that the output includes blocking findings. This is sufficient given annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the primary action, resource, and key output characteristics efficiently.

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 has a very complex input object with nested structures and no output schema, yet the description gives no detail about the checklist structure, findings format, or how evidence maps to results. It is more of a headline than a complete description.

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 says 'supplied evidence,' adding no meaning to the input object's fields such as `now`, `configured_environment`, `api_base_url`, orders arrays, webhooks, or thresholds. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Generate') and a clear resource ('production-readiness checklist'), while adding 'deterministic' and 'blocking findings' to clarify output. It distinguishes itself from sibling audit/detect/validate tools by being an aggregator that produces a checklist.

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 phrase 'from supplied evidence' implies the tool is used after diagnostic evidence is available, but there is no explicit when-to-use or alternative comparison. It does not state exclusions or mention sibling tools, so context is only implied.

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