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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing the requirement for Authorization: Bearer <JWT>, indicating that it re-checks on-chain data, and explaining the significance of the 'standing' status. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three short sentences with all essential info front-loaded: the action, the timing, the status meaning, and the auth requirement. No redundant words or filler.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, when to call, auth, and the key status value. It does not enumerate all possible statuses or the return format, but for a minimal check tool this is likely sufficient. There is no output schema to rely on, so a slightly richer description of possible statuses could improve completeness.

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 input schema only documents an integer 'id' with no description (0% coverage). The description refers to 'caller's bid #id', which maps the parameter to a bid identifier and gives it meaning, but it does not provide detailed semantics like where to obtain the id or any constraints. This partially compensates for the absent schema description.

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 states a specific verb ('re-checks') and resource ('the chain for the caller's bid #id') and clarifies the output ('current status'). It also defines the meaning of 'standing', distinguishing this status-check tool from related bidding tools like adspace_bid or adspace_bid_cancel.

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 explicitly gives a timing instruction: 'call after sending the exact amount.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the context of checking a specific bid's payment status makes the intended use clear; exclusions are not stated, so not a 5.

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