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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that settlement is an irreversible USDC payment and that the server never signs or spends on the caller's behalf. It also specifies the two failure modes: a fresh 402 challenge when authorization is missing and a structured error for a bad job_id. It confirms the job record stays immutable after settlement.

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 precondition is front-loaded and each sentence conveys a distinct point: what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and how it fails. The closing example repeats the Evidence Pack claim already made two sentences earlier, so it is slightly wasteful.

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 two-parameter tool that settles an irreversible payment, the description covers the authorization model, the return payload, the error paths, and the immutability guarantee. An output schema exists, so the remaining details about the response are already covered elsewhere.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description adds the framing that payment_response is the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE value tied to this exact job, but it adds little beyond what the schema's own descriptions provide.

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 opening sentence names a specific action and resource: retrieving the accepted delivery for an immutable job using caller-supplied x402 authorization. It is distinguishable from the sibling aftersearch_quote, but the phrase 'accepted delivery' is somewhat abstract until the later sentences clarify it.

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 states the precondition clearly: the agent must hold fresh PAYMENT-REQUIRED terms and the caller must approve the spend. It also implies the alternative path: without authorization, it returns a fresh 402 challenge instead of settling. It never names a specific sibling tool such as aftersearch_quote or aftersearch_resolve.

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