Check configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is partly covered, but the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses exactly what is reported (mode and per-gateway env var presence) and guarantees that secret values are never returned. It stops short of describing output shape or what happens if a gateway is misconfigured.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the core behavior and ends with the most important safety guarantee. The 'Doctor:' label is slightly jargony but functions as a fast cue rather than waste.

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 one-parameter, read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers what it reads, what it reports, per-gateway scoping, and a secrecy guarantee. Nothing material is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'provider' parameter has an enum of gateway ids documented as 'Gateway id'. The phrase 'per gateway' weakly implies that the parameter scopes the check to one gateway, but it never states what happens when the optional parameter is omitted (presumably all gateways), which is the one piece of semantics the schema cannot convey.

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 concrete diagnostic operation (reporting mode plus present/missing environment variables per gateway), which is clearly distinct from the transactional siblings like payments_create_payment or payments_refund. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearest informational sibling, payments_list_providers, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 'Doctor:' framing implies the tool is for diagnosing configuration problems, which gives an implicit usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer payments_list_providers or payments_get_capabilities instead, and no note about when to pass a provider versus omitting it.

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