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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description adds real behavioral context: the exact contents returned (text, hash, version, sources, shortfall) and the notable pre-payment response state, which an agent could not infer from annotations or schema.

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 payload description is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the availability caveat and the credential note. Every sentence carries information; the phrasing is dense but not padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the burden of describing returned fields, and it does so with reasonable specificity. Combined with the auth prerequisite and pre-payment behavior, an agent has enough to call this correctly, with only sibling disambiguation left implicit.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds a little meaning by tying credentials to 'the offer link or linked request', clarifying that the id may be either an offer or a request identifier, but it adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (retrieve a paid order's deliverable) and enumerates the payload: exact text, SHA-256, version, sources, and any shortfall. The parenthetical constraint 'where the business produces it itself (a report)' narrows scope, which implicitly separates it from a sibling like inspect_delivery, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 describes a precondition ('Before payment is confirmed it says it is not yet available') and tells the agent what credentials to supply, which implies the correct usage context. However, it never states when to choose this tool over inspect_delivery or request_status, nor any exclusion besides the unpaid case.

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