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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value beyond those: it discloses the requirement for the original Authorization header and clarifies that 'pending/error is not confirmation,' which is critical behavioral context. It is consistent with annotations and adds useful nuance, so 4.

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 description is three concise sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat about confirmation is included without bloat. Every sentence earns its place, so 5.

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 simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, a key parameter, and an important caveat about confirmation. It lacks explicit details on jobId semantics, but the pattern and name are self-explanatory, and annotations cover safety. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly, so 4.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains includeResult (requests the result) and hints at auth for jobId, but does not describe jobId itself beyond its name and pattern. It adds meaning for one of two parameters, so 3.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('existing private job status or finalized contribution receipt'), and clarifies it never creates or retries a payment. This clearly distinguishes it from a creation tool, though it does not explicitly name the sibling prepare_tip_quote. It is clear but lacks explicit sibling naming, so 4.

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 gives clear context on when to use (reading status/receipt) and explicitly states what it does not do (never creates/retries), which indirectly guides away from other tools. However, it does not name alternatives or specify conditions for using get_tip_terms instead. It provides some guidance but no explicit exclusions, so 3.

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