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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe, non-mutating read, so the description only needs to add context. It adds that the receipt token is private and originates from submit_offer, but discloses nothing about possible status values, retry behavior, or error cases for an invalid token.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key dependency (submit_offer) is stated immediately. It is efficient but arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema and two fully undocumented required parameters, the description covers the basic workflow dependency but leaves the return payload and failure modes unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry both parameters, and it does name their provenance (ID and private receipt token from submit_offer) and implies the token is sensitive. It still gives no format, length, or validity guidance beyond that origin.

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) and resource (acknowledgement status), and ties itself to the submit_offer workflow. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_appeal or get_open_tasks, though it does not explicitly say what it is not.

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?

Gives a clear precondition: use it with the ID and private receipt token returned by submit_offer, which routes the agent correctly after submission. It stops short of stating exclusions or what to do if the status is not yet acknowledged.

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