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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: whether the call is read-only (implied but unstated), whether 'arrived' means settled/authorized/pending, latency or polling behavior, or what a negative result looks like. Only the faintest read-only implication is conveyed.

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?

It is short, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than conciseness — the single sentence is a rhetorical question that omits the operation name, the resource, and any scoping detail. Front-loading is moot when there is so little content.

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 tool with an unannotated mutation/query profile, one undocumented parameter, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description leaves an agent unable to confirm what is checked or what a result means. It is essentially incomplete.

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?

The single required parameter intent_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains its meaning or format. With a low-coverage schema the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 question 'Has this payment arrived yet?' implies a payment-arrival status check for a purchase intent, which is a discernible purpose. However, it never states the operation as a verb+resource (e.g. 'check payment status'), and it gives no differentiation from siblings purchase_intent and purchase_quote.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus purchase_intent or purchase_quote, nor any stated preconditions. At best the question form weakly implies 'use this to poll whether payment has settled,' which is not enough to route an agent reliably.

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