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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns 'settled' or 'not_found', explains what each means, warns 'do NOT pay again' for settled, and highlights the security implication ('bearer secret'). This goes far beyond a basic statement.

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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and usage. Every sentence adds essential information—no fluff, no repetition.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the scenario, return values, safety implications, and a subtle technical nuance about facilitator broadcasts, leaving no critical gaps.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by emphasizing the request_key is a bearer secret and the only way to answer, which is crucial for correct and safe use.

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 clearly states the tool checks whether a payment was recorded before retrying, using a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('payment status'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_payment_requirements by focusing on post-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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when a paid call timed out or its response was lost' and provides the precondition (pass the request_key). It also implicitly warns against using it without an attempted payment and explains why this is the only way to resolve ambiguity on certain rails.

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