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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), it discloses that inspect is read-only while recheck may permanently update the private attempt, which terminal next_action values mean no further action, and how error codes should be handled. It even reconciles itself with the static discovery warning, which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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 actions and the terminal-state meanings are front-loaded, and the length is justified because there is no output schema for the next_action values. Some sentences about the public world-offer record (payment_invalid, payment_expired, founder_review) are dense and slightly tangential, but they are return-value semantics that must live somewhere.

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 supplies the return-value vocabulary (next_action guidance plus terminal no-sale outcomes), the mutation semantics of each action, and error/retry behavior. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden, and it fully explains the enum values inspect and recheck and their differing side effects. It does not describe attempt_id's format or provenance beyond 'one of your stored payment attempts', though the schema supplies the pattern and length bounds.

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 opens with the two accepted actions (inspect, recheck) and what each does, so the agent knows this is a status/verification tool over a stored payment attempt. It never names a sibling to differentiate from directly, relying instead on the generic 'Call front_door' fallback, which leaves sibling disambiguation to inference.

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 routes between the two actions ('use inspect to privately read...; use recheck to check it from immutable stored terms'), states what recheck does not accept, and gives concrete retry rules for 409/503 including 'do not pay again'. This is unusual, actionable when-to-use guidance rather than vague framing.

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