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

Annotations already cover the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new context: the token travels only in a header to the store and is never persisted, and the connector holds no keys or funds. It still omits failure behavior (unmatched digest, unpaid order) and any retry/rate-limit notes.

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 mode logic is front-loaded and well ordered, which is exactly right. However, two sentences of transactional legal boilerplate ('not financial advice', 'all sales final') do not help an agent select or invoke the tool and dilute an otherwise tight definition.

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?

With no output schema, the description does carry return-value burden and handles part of it (signed download link plus add-ons; status plus a fresh link once paid). For a payment-verification tool it still leaves error and partial-payment outcomes unspecified, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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 a baseline of 3 applies, but the description goes further by explaining the semantic role of 'digest' as the mode switch rather than just 'a Sui transaction digest'. The 'plus add-ons' phrase slightly enriches the intended output of the digest path.

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 ('verify your on-chain payment for an order and get the signed download link') and clearly splits the tool into two modes based on the presence of the digest parameter. An agent can tell it apart from create_template_order or list_templates without opening the schema.

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 an explicit conditional: use with a digest to verify a payment and mint the download link, omit it to poll order status. It does not name siblings (e.g. create_template_order) or state when this tool should *not* be used, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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