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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant. The description does add real behavioral context beyond the annotations: glosses on the statuses (created = awaiting payment, paid = offered with a 10-minute window) and the privacy/authorization behavior that customer_token unlocks the deliverable and private brief.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the state glosses, then the token escalation and safety note. Dense but every clause carries domain information an agent needs.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating all possible statuses and disclosing the conditional extra payload. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears to be missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description roughly restates what the schema already says about customer_token unlocking the deliverable, adding no format, sourcing, or error semantics beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Check a job') and then enumerates the full state space the job can be in, so the agent knows exactly what is being inspected. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings (call_human, deliver, request_review), but the resource 'job' is unambiguous.

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 only implied: the agent must infer that this is the polling/inspection counterpart to call_human, since that link lives in the schema parameter description rather than the tool description. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, though the customer_token clause hints at escalation for extra data.

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