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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description reinforces this by calling it a read. It adds valuable behavioral context: pricing per call, free tier, x402 payment requirements, the optional x-credit-token header, no wallet/API key requirement, and the payer-RECLAIMABLE edge case caused by a missed capture window.

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?

The description is dense but well-structured, front-loading the core reconciliation purpose before filtering and pricing details. The pricing and marketing sentence is slightly long but carries practical information an agent needs before invoking a paid tool.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the annotations cover safety semantics, the description provides everything needed to invoke correctly: protocol, filter semantics, status coverage, pricing, auth requirements, and the no-wallet/no-API-key condition. No critical operational context 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 descriptions already cover all four parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful usage nuance beyond the schema by identifying payment as an infoHash and explaining that omitting all filters yields the network feed.

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 clearly identifies a specific action ('reconciles') and resource ('two-phase auth/capture payments' on Base's Commerce Payments protocol), and enumerates the payment statuses covered. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling commerce_operator_audit tool, though its focus on payment reconciliation rather than operator auditing makes the purpose fairly unambiguous.

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 description gives concrete filter options (payment, payer, receiver, operator) and explicitly states that omitting all filters returns the network feed. It provides clear usage context but does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like commerce_operator_audit.

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