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

Annotations flag this as a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive open-world call; the description earns credit by clarifying what the mutation actually is (a refresh against Stripe), what side effect can occur (completing delivery of an already-paid item), and what it explicitly does not do (no new order, charge, or future permission). It still omits auth/privacy specifics and failure behavior.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by three tight caveats in a logical order. Some terminology ("toast", "digital fulfillment") is jargon that costs more clarity than it saves, but there is no padding.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to explain side effects and edge cases — which it largely does. The notable gap is that receipt_token's origin (where the caller gets a 64-hex token) is never addressed.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It partially compensates by explaining that a diag_-prefixed identifier returns a preview rather than the paid report, but it never explains the receipt_token parameter or the ord/buy/work/micro prefixes, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 pairs specific verbs ("refresh", "retrieve") with a specific resource (an order's receipt/digital fulfillment) and scopes it to Stripe. It implicitly positions itself as the post-purchase counterpart to siblings like place_order, but never names a sibling to contrast with.

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 gives concrete conditional context (a diag_ identifier yields only the free preview, a refresh may finalize an already-paid delivery), which tells the agent what outcome to expect. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_catalog or diagnose_integration, or what preconditions the receipt_token implies.

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