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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses asynchronous payment settlement, explains polling expectations, and warns that the walletToken is the wallet itself with no backing account. It also clarifies the return content (walletToken and smack balance) rather than leaving the output mysterious.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, successful result, polling/async guidance, and the critical token-custody warning. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the input source, expected return values, polling behavior, asynchronous failure mode, and downstream action. The exact shape of the 'not paid yet' response is not specified, but 'report whether' and the polling guidance make the behavior sufficiently clear.

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?

The input schema already describes sessionId as 'The sessionId returned by create_checkout' with 100% coverage. The description reinforces this relationship but does not add new format, constraint, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'report whether the person has paid yet' given the sessionId from create_checkout. This clearly differentiates it from create_checkout (creating the checkout) and smack_boss (spending tokens), and implies a different identifier source than get_wallet.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: poll every few seconds after sending someone to the checkout URL, and treat 'not paid yet' as normal due to asynchronous card settlement. It names the downstream next step (pass token to smack_boss) but does not explicitly list exclusions such as 'use get_wallet instead once you have a walletToken.'

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