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

The annotation declares readOnlyHint=true, but the description states the tool 'upgrade the token to full scope' and 'the token is automatically upgraded to full scope', which is a state-changing side effect. This directly contradicts the read-only annotation, making the description misleading.

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 three concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives timing/polling guidance, and the third states the prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant text.

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 description covers the core purpose, when to call, polling interval, prerequisite token, and the effect on token scope. Given the output schema exists, return values need not be described. However, the contradiction with annotations reduces overall reliability, though that is already captured in behavioral transparency.

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 already fully documents the only parameter (bearer_token) with a description 'Guest token from auth_verify_otp' at 100% coverage. The description repeats the same source, adding no meaningful new information. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Check if the patient has completed payment and upgrade the token to full scope', which is a specific verb+resource and includes the unique token-upgrade side effect that distinguishes it from sibling tools like checkout_status. Adding 'Call this after sharing the checkout payment link' reinforces the intended flow.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool ('Call this after sharing the checkout payment link') and how often to poll ('every 10-15 seconds'). It also names the prerequisite token source. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, so it misses the full 'when-not/alternatives' bar for a 5.

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