inspect_payment_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool does not edit protected code, which is a useful safety trait. However, it doesn't mention what data is accessed, whether any side effects occur, or what the return format looks like.

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 sentence that starts with the action and resource, then adds a safety qualifier. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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?

At only 10 words, the description is far too brief for a tool with two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a large sibling set. It doesn't clarify what 'payment health signals' are, how the parameters affect behavior, or what results to expect.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no explanation of 'taskId' or 'pathname'. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics at all.

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 identifies a specific action ('Inspect') and resource ('payment health signals'), which distinguishes it from sibling inspection tools like inspect_auth_health. However, 'payment health signals' is somewhat vague and doesn't specify what these signals are.

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 'without editing protected code' implies a safe, read-only context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like inspect_analytics_health or run_live_diagnostics. No alternatives are named and no 'when not to use' is provided.

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