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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them by defining the terminal state machine (MINED = position is yours, CONFIRMED = finalized settlement, FAILED/EXPIRED/ABANDONED = nothing spent, no gas committed). It also discloses an extra return field, `selfSubmit`, and explains when to reach for it (relayer unavailable). This is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the state glossary, then the fallback return value — a logical order with no filler. It is dense and slightly long, but nearly every clause carries information the caller needs to interpret the result.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with a full output schema and clear annotations, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing. The description deliberately explains the non-obvious state values while leaving the raw return shape to the output schema.

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% and the single `digest` parameter is documented in-schema as coming from problee_execute_trade_intent. The description reinforces the 'signed trade intent' framing but adds no format, encoding, or lookup-failure semantics beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check what happened to a signed trade intent') and enumerates the three things it returns: acceptance status, the broadcast transaction, and the final outcome. It is clearly distinct from generic siblings like get_transaction_status, though it never names those siblings to draw the contrast 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the input schema ties the digest to problee_execute_trade_intent, so an agent can infer this is the follow-up call after submitting an intent. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing against the many other status/receipt tools (get_trade_status, get_transaction_status, get_claim_status).

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