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

Annotations already establish readOnly/no-destructive, so the burden is lower. The description still adds genuine value by disclosing the state machine (pending → submitted → settled | failed) and what is returned on success (txHash, explorerUrl), which no output schema covers.

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 front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the action and target come first, the status progression and return values follow. Nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 no output schema, the description usefully compensates by naming the return fields and the terminal states. It falls short only on operational guidance such as polling cadence or what to do while pending, which an agent calling a status-check tool would benefit from.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it at 100% coverage, including its origin ('returned from near_intent'). The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (check) plus the exact resource (settlement status of a submitted NEAR 1Click cross-chain payment intent). This clearly separates it from siblings like near_intent, near_quote, and near_status, since it names the specific 1Click intent lifecycle it operates on.

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 word 'submitted' implies the tool is used after near_intent, but the description never names near_intent as a prerequisite or states when to prefer this over near_status or get_settlement_status. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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