noticer_enroll_commerce

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

Goes well past the annotations: discloses that enrollment itself never charges, that five free checks are granted to new self-service buyers, that later receipts cost USD 1 with separate wallet approval, and that the credential/recovery secret stay in encrypted local custody. 'Enroll once' is consistent with idempotentHint=true. Minor gap: it doesn't say what happens on a repeat call or how failure modes surface.

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 enrollment condition is front-loaded and nearly every sentence carries operational weight (URL, approval order, pricing, custody). The prose is dense and slightly rambling in the middle, but there is no filler to cut.

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 high-stakes enrollment that touches payment and consent, the description covers cost, consent gating, secret custody and the approval workflow; an output schema exists so return shape needs no elaboration. What remains thin is per-parameter guidance for the three required booleans.

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 0% — the three booleans have no descriptions at all — so the description must carry the load. It does explain the consent semantics collectively ('Booleans assert consent, not proof') and ties approval and terms acceptance to setting them true, but it never maps meaning onto the individual parameter names owner_authorized and commerce_scope_accepted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Enroll once' for 'commerce-only access' to public-JSON checks — which is enough to separate it from the account/setup siblings. It stops short of naming which sibling to use when commerce-only access is not the goal (e.g. noticer_commercial_setup vs noticer_commercial_account).

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition ('when the owner chooses commercial public-JSON checks and needs commerce-only access') plus a prerequisite sequence: show the /start URL, obtain host action-time approval, then set the booleans true. It does not state exclusions or explicitly redirect to a sibling when the condition is unmet.

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