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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose that the tool returns `stablecoin_payment_instructions` and a watch-only `deposit_address` under `COMPLETED_AWAITING_PAYMENT` for USDT/USDC checkout. It does not cover authentication needs, rate limits, normal return shape, or the full set of possible statuses, so disclosure is partial.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the general purpose and then the critical conditional return behavior. There is no filler, and the length is appropriate for the tool’s complexity.

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 and no annotations, the description must carry return-value context. It explains the key payment-instruction branch, but it omits the standard status values and general return shape, leaving an agent with only partial context for interpreting normal results.

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 schema already states that `job_id` is returned by `calligraphy_compile_board`. The description references `job_id` but adds no format, constraint, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb, 'Query', and a specific resource, 'compilation and payment status of a Calligraphy EDA job', tied directly to `job_id`. It clearly distinguishes this status-check operation from payment-verification siblings, even without naming them.

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 after a job is created or compiled to check its status, and it explains the special `COMPLETED_AWAITING_PAYMENT` branch. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of `calligraphy_verify_stablecoin_payment` or other payment-related siblings, so guidance remains implied.

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