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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them: newest-first ordering, the five distinct status values (sent, confirmed, rejected, expired, locked), and a privacy guarantee that the counterparty's address is never shown. This is materially richer than the annotations alone.

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 read-only constraint and core purpose are front-loaded, and the sentence enumerating status values and fields is dense but purposeful. Slightly run-on, but every clause conveys operative information.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return structure, yet it still lists the emitted fields and ordering for orientation. Combined with the parameter scoping and status enumeration, an agent has enough to call this correctly.

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 0% for the single optional content_hash parameter, so the description must carry the burden. It does: 'for one version's content_hash, or all' explains both what the parameter scopes to and the omit-for-all default, which the schema's null default alone does not convey.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Read-only: whether the counterparty confirmed or rejected a change') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling confirmation_prepare, leaving that distinction to inference from the names.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Read-only' and 'status,' suggesting it is the query counterpart to confirmation_prepare, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative. The agent must infer that this is the read path versus the prepare path.

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