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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior beyond the schema — that x402 payment terms are returned and that 'Nothing is sold but the read,' clarifying no purchase occurs. It omits intent lifetime/expiry, whether repeated calls create duplicate intents, and any auth requirements, which matter for a payment-handshake tool.

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 tight sentences with the payload (terms + intent id) front-loaded and no filler. The phrasing is slightly oblique ('Nothing is sold but the read') but every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description covers the key output fields. However, for a no-annotation tool with three wholly undocumented parameters, it leaves the payment flow, intent lifecycle, and parameter meanings under-specified.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate. It partially does by hinting at the 'scope' values ('the full row or the delta'), but 'since' and 'issuer' are never explained, and the default of 'delta' is not mentioned or justified.

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 concrete outcome: it produces an order intent for a paid read and returns the x402 terms plus the intent id needed for the paid call. That is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_row or get_delta, which appear to be the reads themselves, though the name is nominal ('An order intent') rather than a verb.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the intent id is 'to carry into the paid call,' which tells the agent this is a prerequisite step. It never explicitly says when to call this versus going straight to get_row/get_delta, nor does it mention prerequisites or sequencing constraints.

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