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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses little: it implies a read but never states read-only behavior, auth requirements (bearerToken is optional in schema but unaddressed), or error handling when no identifier is given. Return shape is only vaguely gestured at as 'goal and progress'.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the lookup method; no padding. It is arguably too terse rather than too long.

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 and no annotations, the description should cover return value shape and error/identifier requirements, which it mostly doesn't. It gives the minimum an agent needs to attempt the call but leaves auth and missing-identifier behavior ambiguous.

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 33% (only bearerToken documented), so the description must compensate somewhat. Mentioning merchantPubkey or merchantId adds meaning beyond bare property names, but it doesn't clarify that these are alternative identifiers, whether both may be passed, or which one wins.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Get revenue goal and progress for a merchant' tells an agent exactly what is returned and for whom. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_merchant_metadata or get_usdc_balance, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

'Query by merchantPubkey or merchantId' implies the two lookup modes but doesn't say when to prefer one, whether either is required, or what happens if both/neither are supplied. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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