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

With no annotations, the description gives some behavioral information: it returns the signed header after the user signs, implying a read-only status check. However, it does not disclose error behavior, prerequisites' handling, or side effects, leaving gaps.

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 two brief sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's 43 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal to fully guide an agent on how to invoke the tool correctly. It doesn't specify which params to set (e.g., sessionId, includeSignedPayment) or explain the retry instructions.

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 has 33% coverage and 43 parameters, but the description does not explain which parameters are relevant or how to use them. It only implies that the signed X-PAYMENT header is returned, which relates to includeSignedPayment but is not explicit. This fails to compensate for low 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 clearly states the tool checks a wallet handoff session and specifies the return value (signed X-PAYMENT header and paid-retry instructions), distinguishing it from other x402 status tools.

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?

The description provides a clear timing condition ('After the user signs') which indicates when to call the tool, but it does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it. That is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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