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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses that buyer authentication is required and that invoking it does not incur another charge. It also emphasizes exact original bytes, adding behavioral fidelity context.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with action and object, no filler. Every phrase adds a constraint or expectation.

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 core retrieval behavior and auth requirement are present, and annotations cover safety and idempotence. But with no output schema and 0% parameter descriptions, it is incomplete for an agent to know what client_proof should contain and what response shape to expect.

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 carries the burden. It only alludes to client_proof as 'buyer authentication' and leaves purchase_id entirely implicit; it doesn't explain proof origin/format or how purchase_id relates to the purchase.

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 verb 'Retrieve' plus a precise object ('exact original WHP Standing Mark or negative assessment bytes') clarifies that this returns stored result data, not modifies it. It does not explicitly call out sibling tools, but the resource scope and 'without another charge' distinguish it from contract/evaluation operations.

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 this is the post-purchase retrieval path ('without another charge', 'buyer authentication'), so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it offers no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the sibling tools.

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