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

Annotations already declare this is a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, but the description still adds real value: it frames the tool as a polling endpoint and as the authoritative source for payment confirmation. It doesn't describe response shape or whether status is eventually consistent, but the polling hint covers the main operational risk.

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 short sentences, the state enumeration front-loaded, and the actionable polling directive last. Nothing is padded and no sentence merely restates the tool title.

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 helpfully names the four status facets an agent will receive and warns to poll. The only small gap is that it never says the submission_token is required to get an answer.

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% and the single parameter already documents that submission_token comes from submit_product, so the description is not obliged to repeat it. It adds no additional meaning about the token, 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?

The description states a specific resource (a submission's state) and enumerates the exact conditions it reports: claimed, paid, verified, published. It's clear enough to distinguish from check-product, though it doesn't name that sibling or explicitly say it's scoped to product submissions.

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?

'This is the only way to find out whether a payment has landed' and 'Poll it rather than assuming' give explicit when-to-use and how-to-use direction. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the cases this one doesn't cover.

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