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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the tool is read-only ('Retrieve') and specifies the data returned (status, settlement hash, dispute history), but lacks details on error handling, authentication requirements, or side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the specific data points. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers what it returns (status, settlement hash, dispute history). It lacks explicit usage guidance or error/edge-case context, but given the low complexity, it is near-complete. A minor addition about when to use it would make it perfect.

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 schema already provides a description for invoice_id ('Invoice ID returned from trade_create_invoice'), and the parameter coverage is 100%. The description text adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so it relies on the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 retrieves invoice-related data (status, settlement transaction hash, dispute history) using the specific verb 'Retrieve' and names the resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like trade_create_invoice (creation) and trade_dispute_invoice (dispute action) by focusing on retrieval of invoice details.

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 usage for fetching invoice information but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or an explicit alternative like trade_get_listing for broader searches. The context is clear but not fully articulated.

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