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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds rich behavioral context: the bounded two-hour recovery period, terminalization, market-first cancellation, and the rule that late finality cannot transfer a reused thing. This goes well beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 core action is front-loaded, but the description includes extra meta-information about the full catalog and a URL for finding help, which is tangential to the tool's usage. This adds length without directly helping an agent decide when or how to invoke the tool.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential conditions and side effects (ownership transfer, recovery window, cancellation behavior). It doesn't describe the return format, but that's not critical for a tool with such a focused purpose.

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?

The schema has only offer_id with 0% description coverage. The description clarifies that offer_id refers to the payment_pending world offer being rechecked, giving meaning beyond the schema. Since it's a single, required integer, the description sufficiently explains its role.

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 states a specific action: rechecking a payment_pending world offer against finalized Base records, with the outcome being completion of ownership transfer if valid. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like payment_attempt or cancel_world by focusing on reconciliation of an existing pending offer.

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?

The scenario for using this tool is clearly implied: when a buyer or seller needs to recheck a payment_pending offer. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes it apparent this is for post-payment verification, not initial payment (payment_attempt) or cancellation (cancel_world).

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