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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behaviour, and the description adds substantial extra context: the payment lifecycle (confirming → paid → generating → done) and the important warning not to re-pay during the confirming state. That is genuine behavioural disclosure beyond the structured hints.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the most useful signal ('Free.') and then enumerates states and return values without filler. No sentence is wasted.

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, so the description compensates by listing exactly what comes back (status, plan summary, PDF link, booking code, receipt). Combined with the state machine and the double-payment warning, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 schema itself documents that report_id comes from get_enhanced_index_report, so the description adds little parameter-specific meaning. Its added value (lifecycle states, return contents) is behavioural rather than parametric, 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 — returns the status of a purchased enhanced report identified by report_id — and the enumerated return fields (plan summary, PDF link, booking code, receipt) make it unmistakably distinct from siblings like get_enhanced_index_report or score_index.

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?

Gives clear usage context: call it with the report_id from get_enhanced_index_report, and an actionable exclusion ('while confirming, do not pay again'). It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling tools an agent might confuse it with, so a 4 rather than 5.

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