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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint, but the description goes further by specifying that only recheck may permanently update the private attempt while inspect is read-only. It also discloses terminal statuses and instructs not to pay again. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured hints and does not contradict the 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 front-loaded and densely informative, but it includes tangential meta-instructions such as 'Annotation: ...', 'Full catalog: /api/tools', and 'Lost? Read the city front door...' which are not needed to invoke this tool. The core operational content is well organized, but the extra navigation guidance makes it longer than necessary.

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 compensates by explaining next_action guidance values, terminal no-sale results, and HTTP-error handling. It leaves unspecified how to obtain an attempt_id and the exact response shape, but these are secondary to correct invocation. Overall, this is a very complete description for a complex payment-checking process.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the action enum values and their tradeoffs. However, attempt_id is only vaguely described as 'one of your stored payment attempts,' leaving some gap about where to obtain it. Still, the most behaviorally significant parameter, action, is well covered.

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 clearly specifies the resource (payment attempts) and the exact allowed actions (inspect and recheck), making the tool's scope unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from the large sibling list by focusing solely on checking payment attempts. The phrase 'The only accepted action inputs are inspect and recheck' leaves no room for misinterpretation.

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 explicitly explains when to use inspect versus recheck, and when recheck remains useful versus when no further action is needed. It also gives precise retry versus inspect guidance for 409 and 503 errors. This is unusually strong usage guidance, including exclusions like 'recheck never accepts payment proof or changed operation terms.'

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