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

Annotations only give coarse hints (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false). The description adds far more: recheck permanently updates the private attempt, recheck rejects payment proof/changed terms, all three terminal outcomes are no-sale, and specific error semantics (concurrent-change 409 vs evidence-conflict 409 vs temporary 503). It is consistent with the annotations, including the note that inspect is the read-only path.

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 critical action definitions are front-loaded, but the description is dense and repetitive ('do not pay again' appears three times), and the world-offer result decoding (payment_invalid / payment_expired / founder_review) is a long block that could be tighter. Sentences are run-on and jargon-heavy, costing readability.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description compensates by enumerating the possible next_action guidance values and their meanings plus terminal result states and error handling. For a two-parameter tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the outcome.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It fully documents the action enum's two values and the private-vs-stored-terms distinction between them; attempt_id is not described but its role is obvious from the prose ('one of your stored payment attempts'). The only minor gap is the id format/constraint, which the schema pattern already enforces.

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 names the two accepted actions, inspect and recheck, and defines each in a single clause ('privately read one of your stored payment attempts' vs 'check it from immutable stored terms'). An agent can distinguish this tool from any sibling in the list, none of which deal with payment attempt verification.

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 explicitly routes between the two actions, states when recheck is still useful versus when no further action is needed, gives retry guidance for 409/503 (retry; for evidence-conflict, inspect instead), and ends with 'Lost? Call front_door.' Nothing is left to inference.

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