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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the full state machine (awaiting_payment, delivered, refunded), the polling interval, and the idempotent behavior that later calls return the same stored appraisal. This tells the agent exactly what outcomes to expect and how to react to each, which the readOnly/idempotent hints alone cannot convey.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and payment gate, then the polling and terminal states. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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?

The output schema exists but the description still pre-empts the key return states, and it covers the retry/idempotency behavior an agent needs for correct polling. Nothing material for calling it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are documented as coming from buy_appraisal, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 (check/return) and resource (a buy_appraisal order's appraisal), explicitly tying it to the buy_appraisal sibling that produced the orderId/orderToken. An agent can distinguish this collector from appraise_domain or quote_domain_purchase 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 concrete invocation context: poll after buy_appraisal, retry after about 10 seconds while awaiting_payment, and later calls are safe repeats. It does not name an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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