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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond these: it emphasizes privacy, explicitly states what the result will not contain (payer identity and payment provider identifiers), and instructs polling behavior. This adds value without contradicting the annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by a pragmatic polling directive and a concise privacy guarantee. Every phrase earns its place.

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 description conveys purpose, polling behavior, and privacy constraints, which covers a lot for a read-only status tool. However, with no output schema, it does not specify the response format or what 'confirmed' concretely returns (e.g., payment and publication booleans, confirmation flags). An agent would need to infer the confirmation condition and response structure from limited information.

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 must compensate, but it never mentions orderId or statusToken or explains their roles. The privacy-focused wording hints that statusToken enables access without identifying the payer, but this is not explicit. Parameter names are somewhat self-descriptive, yet the description adds no direct semantic value to the schema fields.

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 states a specific action ('check payment and publication') and a resource ('sponsorship status'), making the core purpose clear. The privacy qualifier and the note about lacking payer identity help differentiate it from a public info tool, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 instruction 'Poll until confirmed' gives clear operational guidance on how to use the tool repeatedly. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over siblings like get_sponsorship_info or quote_sponsorship, leaving the selection context largely implicit.

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