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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses visibility scoping for agent keys, workspace feature gating with the not_released error, required credential scope, and the 403 behavior for unclaimed sandbox workspaces. It also describes what data is returned and the meaning of the verified flag.

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 front-loaded with the core read operation and every sentence carries necessary operational detail. The first sentence is dense and long, but the information is relevant for a tool with no output schema.

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 no output schema, the description supplies the return-value shape, including recorded intent fields, check counts, and held/spent/remaining amounts. It also covers the authorization, feature-flag, and workspace-claim prerequisites an agent needs to call it successfully.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the single intent_id parameter is already documented as the intent_id carried by a check_purchase. The description reinforces the intent_id context but does not add format or lookup semantics beyond the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: reading one buyer intent and all checks under its intent_id. It clearly distinguishes the read/status view from purchase-mutating siblings such as check_purchase, confirm_purchase, and settle_purchase by describing what it returns.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: 'Use it before the next purchase under the same intent.' It does not explicitly name the alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the timing guidance is strong and actionable.

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