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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the response reveals (gaps and next action), but says nothing about behavior when the intent id is unknown, whether an in-progress registration is pollable, or how stale the data may be.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause contributes (subjects checked plus the actionable 'next action'). The colon-fragment style is slightly informal but not wasteful.

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 an output schema, annotations, and a fully documented parameter, the description only needs to frame the call, and it mostly does. It stops short of stating prerequisites (obtaining the intent id from a quote) or the error/polling expectations an agent would want during a multi-step registration.

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 single parameter already carries a pattern and a description tying it to the quote (dmd_did_intent_...). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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?

The description uses a specific framing ('Progress of a registration') and enumerates what the response covers: payment, controller proof, what is still missing, and the next action. That is clearly distinct from a plain payment-status read, though it never names a sibling to reinforce the distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this to check where a registration stands or what step comes next. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to alternatives such as dmd_get_payment_status for payment-only checks.

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