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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only' is largely redundant. However, the description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing what the check reports (deposit arrival, bridging/payout progress, Coinbase invoice settlement), which matters because there is no output schema.

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 carrying the verb, key and return scope, followed by a two-word safety note. Efficient overall, though 'Read-only' repeats what the annotations already say and could be dropped.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the status facets an agent will receive. It does not cover failure modes (unknown/invalid ID, pending vs. failed states) or whether repeated polling is expected, which leaves minor gaps for a status-check tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage on the single parameter, the schema already documents rozoPaymentId fully, including its origin from create_deposit_order. The description names the parameter but adds no format, length, or lookup semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb (Check) plus resource (Rozo order) and the exact lookup key (rozoPaymentId). It also enumerates the three things it reports on, so the agent knows precisely what the tool answers, which is distinguishable from create_deposit_order and quote_invoice.

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 implies this is the follow-up check after an order exists, but it never states when to call it versus siblings or whether it should be polled. The link to create_deposit_order appears only in the schema's parameter description, not in the tool description itself.

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