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

Annotations mark this as non-read-only and non-idempotent, and the description aligns by revealing that payment confirmation is atomic, targets exactly one matching Base payment, and transitions the order into review. It also discloses the privacy requirement for ticket and signed offer, adding useful context beyond the minimal annotation set.

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?

Three sentences cover mode selection, state transition, return behavior, and security guidance with no filler. Critical usage conditions are front-loaded, and every clause adds distinct 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?

The description covers the main modes, the state-changing effect, return outcomes, and privacy expectations. It is slightly ambiguous about what happens when only one of paymentTx or paymentOffer is provided, since the described alternatives are 'with both' and 'without payment fields', but this is a minor edge case for an otherwise strong definition.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the combined effect of paymentTx and paymentOffer, the 'exactly one matching' constraint, and the resulting review state, which is not fully captured by individual parameter descriptions.

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 ('Check a private service order by its svc_ ticket') and clearly differentiates two behaviors: confirming payment and retrieving status/report. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like check_request and check_submission by focusing on service orders and the svc_ ticket.

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 explicitly explains when to include paymentTx and paymentOffer (to confirm and move to review) and when to omit them (to fetch status/report). It also gives lifecycle guidance with 'once complete', making invocation conditions unambiguous.

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