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

The description states 'Also applies any due timeout' with state transitions (RELEASED/REFUNDED), which is a side effect modifying state. This directly contradicts the annotations readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The tool is not purely read-only, creating a serious inconsistency.

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 reasonably concise and front-loads the main purpose, then adds the timeout logic and a test-money warning. It's structured well but could be slightly tighter by separating the side-effect note from the pure read description.

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?

It covers the core return content, the endpoint, and the test environment, but the side-effect behavior is described in a way that conflicts with annotations, making the actual behavior ambiguous. No mention of error conditions, rate limits, or pagination, but given the small scope and annotations, this is borderline adequate.

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 schema already fully documents the single parameter job_id with an example, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is 100%.

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 clearly states it retrieves job state, events, evidence bundle, and ledger entries, and even provides the endpoint and signature requirement. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like afg_post_job or afg_dispute.

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 description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it is the read/status check tool, but no 'use when' or 'do not use when' guidance is provided. The note about 'no signature' hints at a difference from signed operations, but it's not explicit.

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