payware_logs_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: a plan-tier gating requirement ('Premium plan required') that an agent cannot learn from the schema or annotations, plus what information the call surfaces. It stops short of noting rate limits or cost implications of an open-world call.

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?

Three short sentences with no waste: purpose first, prerequisite second, return contents third. The front-loaded verb and the parenthetical merchant scope tag make it scannable in one pass.

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?

For a three-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what matters: what it returns and that a premium plan gates it. Only the sandbox default behavior and any pagination or size limits on the storage figures are unaddressed, which are minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — partnerId, privateKey and useSandbox all carry their own descriptions including env-var defaults — so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the sandbox-vs-production switch, which is the one parameter choice an agent might get wrong. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource — get log availability and storage information — and enumerates the payload (availability, total size, file count). That distinguishes it from payware_logs_download_url and payware_logs_query, which imply retrieval rather than metadata, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

It gives one hard prerequisite ('Premium plan required') and implicitly frames this as a pre-flight check before pulling logs. It never states when to use this instead of payware_logs_query or payware_logs_download_url, and gives no explicit when-not condition, so the routing is left to inference.

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