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

The description discloses the non-obvious behavior that supplying a receipt causes a write (recording payment tx and delivery hash) before returning, which is valuable given the 'get' framing and consistent with readOnlyHint=false. Beyond that it adds nothing on auth, conflict between receipt and jobId, or what 'records' means on repeat calls despite idempotentHint=true.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the return payload, followed by the two input modes in matching order. No filler, though listing return fields is partly redundant with the existing output schema, and the telegraphic style ('With jobId only: ...') borders on ambiguity.

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, the return enumeration is optional, and the nested receipt object plus zero required parameters make this a moderately complex tool needing more explanation of valid input combinations. The description covers the two headlined modes but leaves the empty-input and both-parameters cases, and most nested-field semantics, unresolved.

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 parameter meaning and only partially does: it explains receipt and jobId roles but says nothing about orderId, and nothing about the nested deliverable, deliverableSha256, latencyMs, or paymentTx fields. Half the parameter surface remains defined only by regex patterns.

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 resource and enumerates exactly what is returned (status, payment tx, escrow job state, deliverable hash, verdict, signed delivery record), then splits behavior by input mode ('With receipt' vs 'With jobId only'). It is clear what the tool does, though the name/title ('get') undersells the write side and no sibling is named for contrast.

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 two conditional sentences implicitly tell the agent which parameter combination produces which behavior, which is real guidance. But it never says when to prefer this over siblings like verify or place_order, and with zero required parameters it leaves the no-argument and orderId-only cases unexplained.

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