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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses idempotency and a polling cadence, but does not mention permissions, side effects (e.g., whether verification updates order state), or what the response contains. These are notable gaps for a verification/mutation-adjacent tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by operational guidance. There is no wasted language.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers when to call it, idempotency, and polling. However, it does not explain what the caller should expect back (e.g., updated confirmation status) or whether the call changes order state, leaving a gap for an agent deciding how to use the result.

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% and there is one required parameter, so the description should add meaning. It implies the parameter identifies an order awaiting confirmation, but it does not describe the expected format or source of order_id beyond that context.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Re-run on-chain verification' for an order with pending payment confirmations. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like submit_crypto_payment_proof by emphasizing re-verification rather than proof submission.

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 states the condition for use ('order whose payment proof is pending confirmations') and gives a polling cadence ('poll about once a minute'), which is clear guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to choose correctly.

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