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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by distinguishing expected from actual finalized transfer state and by warning that intermediate evidence is not settlement, which is behavior beyond what the annotations state. It 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?

Two sentences with no filler: the core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by adding a critical finality caveat. Every word contributes.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, the description supplies the essential return semantics (expected vs actual finalized state) and the caveat needed to interpret results correctly. The security-critical clientToken guidance is already in the schema, so nothing needed for correct invocation is 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 50%: clientToken is richly documented, while runId has only its uuid format. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning and does not compensate for the undocumented runId, but the parameter names and the clientToken security note in the schema keep this from being a serious gap.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Read expected reward/refund and actual finalized transfer state') and differentiates the tool from siblings that track intermediate results by warning that 'A verdict, signature or included transaction alone is not final settlement.' This leaves no doubt about what is being retrieved.

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 description implies when to use this tool: when final settlement state is needed, and explicitly warns that intermediate artifacts (verdict, signature, included transaction) are insufficient. It stops short of naming the sibling tools that produce those artifacts, so the routing is clear but not fully explicit.

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