noticer_commercial_setup

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real context beyond them: no account/order/payment is created, missing config is non-blocking, and it disclaims that this is guidance rather than a verified outcome or free-eligibility guarantee. That negative-space disclosure is exactly what annotations can't express.

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 trigger condition is correctly front-loaded, but the text is padded: 'Creates nothing' is stated once as a standalone sentence and then restated as 'without creating an account, order or payment,' and the final disclaimer sentence repeats the 'this is setup guidance' idea already conveyed by the title-adjacent framing. Two of the five sentences could be merged without information loss.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return values, and it still names them at a high level (setup state, terms location, price). For a zero-parameter read-only setup tool, an agent has enough to decide and call correctly; the only gap is not indicating what a caller should do after reading the state.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.

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 the concrete deliverable (local setup state, canonical terms location, published USD 1 receipt price) and explicitly states 'Creates nothing,' which separates it from write-oriented siblings like noticer_prepare_receipt and noticer_pay_with_existing_link. However, the opening framing about 'an action you sent or delegated needs its result confirmed' describes a broader workflow rather than this tool's own function, which delays the actual verb+resource.

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?

'Start here when...' gives an explicit entry-point condition with three conjunctive triggers (needs confirmation, your tools can't, result is one field of public HTTPS JSON), which is genuinely actionable. It also preempts a likely failure mode ('A missing local configuration does not prevent tool discovery'). It stops short of naming which sibling to move to next, so alternatives are only implied by the name set.

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