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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the Worker reads the receipt, checks the order, and records the order, but it omits permissions, idempotency, failure behavior, and whether re-running it is safe.

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 two short sentences with the timing condition front-loaded and no wasted text. It gets straight to the point.

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?

There are no annotations, no output schema, and only 33% schema description coverage. The description explains the basic workflow but leaves important gaps around parameter meanings, return behavior, and error or permission expectations.

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 only 33%, and the description blurs the distinction between the transaction hash and wallet token while never plainly defining the 'order' parameter. It does not compensate for the undocumented parameters in 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?

The description states a specific post-transaction confirmation action: it reads the receipt, checks the prepared order, and records it. The purpose is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling shop and prepare_* tools.

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 clearly says to use this after the post transaction is mined, which gives a concrete timing precondition. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear.

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