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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial operational context: WAIT-only checks are omitted here, payment checks fail while the store is closed, timeout failures suggest the server stopped or origin differs, and the record only changes when verify runs again. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond structured 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?

The description is front-loaded with the call condition and runId requirement, then proceeds through return shape, CLI authority, and failure diagnostics. Every sentence carries actionable information, and there is no filler despite the density of caveats.

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?

Given no output schema and a read-only, idempotent annotation profile, the description fully explains what is returned, what may be missing, how to interpret failures, and when results are stale. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents both runId and storefrontKey. The description reinforces that runId is the latest verify run and storefrontKey is the site's publishable key, but it does not add format details, edge cases, or defaults beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific retrieval action: read the latest verify run, showing pass/fail per check, sandbox order payment status, and the go-live list when green. It clearly distinguishes itself from the verify command and references storefront_connect, so an agent can tell what this tool returns and why it exists.

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?

It explicitly says to call this after running the verify command with the runId of that latest run. It also explains when the tool is unnecessary (no FAIL in the CLI means nothing to fix), when to rerun (store closed causes payment FAILs), and how to diagnose all-timeout runs.

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