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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the status model, returned download and PDF links, link expiry field, expected confirmation timing, retry behavior, and the expired-license handoff. 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then flows through return values, user guidance, timing, and failure handling. Every sentence carries actionable information.

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, but the description explains the relevant statuses, returned fields, link expiry, expected timing, and next action on expiry. That is enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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?

The schema fully documents the single payment_id parameter, including an example format and its origin from initiate_license. The description does not add further parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 and resource: check whether a license payment has been confirmed on Base. It also enumerates the possible statuses and distinguishes the expired case from initiate_license, so the agent can tell what this tool does versus its siblings.

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 gives explicit operational guidance: if status is awaiting_payment or payment_confirmed, tell the user and check again shortly; confirmation usually takes 30-60 seconds; if expired, start a new license with initiate_license. This directly covers when to retry and when to use the alternative tool.

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