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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the ~15s polling cadence, the meaning of pendingActions values, and the fact that completion requires every leg to be confirmed. That is substantive disclosure no structured field carries.

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?

Front-loads the core action and payload, then adds polling guidance in the same breath. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the enumerated field list makes it slightly long for a one-parameter read.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return shape (status, pendingActions, deposit, per-leg status/amount/tx hash) and the completion criterion. Complete enough to act on; the only gap is that leg status values themselves aren't enumerated.

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 fundingId is already documented as coming from stellar_wallet_create_order, which the description essentially repeats. No extra syntax, format, or edge-case guidance is added, so the schema does all the work.

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+resource ('Read a funding order by fundingId') immediately followed by the returned payload. An agent can distinguish this read-only status check from stellar_wallet_create_order without opening either schema.

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?

Gives operational guidance ('Poll about every 15 seconds') and a completion condition ('completed only when every leg is confirmed'), plus an interpretation hint for 'sign_stellar_onboarding'. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use it.

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