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

With no annotations, the description carries disclosure responsibility and does a solid job: it states the data scope, explicitly excludes the brief and output, requires caller's own payment, and defines `found:false`. It does not describe all error and edge behavior, hence not 5.

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 dense and all content is relevant, but it is a single long sentence with several parenthetical interruptions, making it slightly harder to scan than a more structured two-sentence version.

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?

Given no output schema, it communicates the broad response content (ledger line categories and `found:false`) and the required inputs. It leaves the exact response shape and error handling implicit, but the main invocation path is adequately described.

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 100%, so the baseline is satisfied; the description adds the correlation invariant among `job_id`, `payment_hash`, and `retry_token`, and the not-found convention, going beyond simply restating 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 names a specific resource ('this door's BUYER LEDGER') and a precise outcome ('One job's lines'), enumerates what those lines contain, and ties the job to a prior `hekte_ask` result so it cannot be confused with `hekte_ask` or `hekte_balance`.

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 clearly states the precondition that the caller must have paid for the job and that `job_id` must come from `hekte_ask` for the same `payment_hash` + `retry_token`. It does not explicitly name an alternative for other needs, so it stops short of a full 5.

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