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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful return semantics ('datum_uplate, empty if unpaid'), but says nothing about failure modes for an invalid or unknown invoice id.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the purpose and return fields come first, with the trailing endpoint hint as a minor cost. No wasted sentences.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema, the description does the necessary work by naming the returned fields and explaining the empty-unpaid case. Only error/not-found behavior is missing.

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 100% and the parameter is already documented as an invoice hash from solo_list_invoices. The description's 'GET /status?id=' merely restates the parameter without adding format or validation meaning beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Get the payment status of one invoice') and enumerates the returned fields (status code, colour, datum_uplate). It implicitly differentiates from solo_get_invoice by being status-only, but never names the sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the lightweight status check versus solo_get_invoice or solo_get_offer_status, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative is stated. The 'Solo API: GET /status?id=' line adds endpoint context but not selection guidance.

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