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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a critical behavioral trait: payment_response is forwarded as PAYMENT-SIGNATURE and 'SML never signs or spends.' This gives the agent important trust and side-effect context that annotations alone do not convey, though it stops short of detailing failure modes or response behavior.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no redundancy. The core action is front-loaded, and the important 'SML never signs or spends' caveat is placed immediately after the parameter behavior it qualifies.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main invocation behavior and the key security property. It lacks explicit return or error semantics and does not describe what happens on failure, but it is otherwise sufficient for an agent to understand the operation's purpose and primary constraints.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that payment_response is the caller-supplied x402 authorization forwarded as PAYMENT-SIGNATURE, and job_id is implicitly the job to retry. However, job_id semantics are only lightly covered and no additional constraints or usage details are provided.

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 action ('Retry') and resource ('one immutable job') and introduces the key mechanism (caller-supplied x402 authorization). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like aftersearch_quote or aftersearch_resolve, which serve different purposes.

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 the tool is used to retry a job with a payment authorization provided by the caller, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention prerequisites like obtaining a quote first. Usage is inferable but not fully spelled out.

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