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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses a conditional return behavior: when status is `COMPLETED_AWAITING_PAYMENT`, `stablecoin_payment_instructions` appear with a watch-only `deposit_address`, which is genuinely useful context an agent cannot get from 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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the core action first and the conditional payment branch second. The `(0x...)` address hint earns its place by telling the agent what the deposit address looks like.

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 should carry return-value information, and it does explain the key conditional branch and its payload. It stops short of enumerating the possible `status` values or other returned fields, which would help an agent interpret non-payment states.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already states the job ID comes from calligraphy_compile_board. The description names `job_id` but adds no format, validation, or lifecycle detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Query') and resource ('compilation and payment status of a Calligraphy EDA job'), scoped by `job_id`. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like calligraphy_compile_board, calligraphy_verify_stablecoin_payment, and calligraphy_create_coinbase_checkout.

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 through the `job_id` reference and the mention of `COMPLETED_AWAITING_PAYMENT`, which suggests calling after a compile and before payment verification. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus calligraphy_verify_stablecoin_payment or how to poll, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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