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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the result surfaces 'structured dispatch blockers', which tells the agent something about the payload shape beyond the annotations.

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?

One front-loaded sentence stating the action and the outcome, with zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description is thin: it does not define what 'readiness' means, what conditions produce blockers, or how to interpret the result. An agent can call it safely but cannot predict whether the output is actionable.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a pattern and sensitivity note, so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds nothing about apiKey, but no compensation is needed for a one-parameter read-only tool.

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) and resource (agent readiness) with a scope qualifier (authenticated operator). It is distinguishable from most siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the similarly named get_escrow_readiness.

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?

No when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives despite a large sibling set that includes get_escrow_readiness and publish_agent_manifest. The agent must infer the trigger condition entirely.

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