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

Annotations give the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), but the description explains the surprising part: that polling 'also records a payment that just arrived,' which reconciles the non-read-only hint with an apparent read operation. It also discloses the 48-hour email confirmation window. It does not cover auth/token requirements, which the schema implies.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and the state set, followed by the notable side effect and the cost note. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be described; the description instead supplies the status vocabulary, the side-effect caveat, and the confirmation deadline. Together with the two required params from formation.checkout, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 100% and both parameters are documented as values returned by formation.checkout, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no per-parameter detail (e.g., token lifetime or error behavior on mismatch), leaving this at the baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

Names a specific verb (poll/check) and resource (USDC payment status for a formation order), enumerates the possible states (awaiting, paid, expired, underpaid, held), and anchors itself to the sibling that creates the order, formation.checkout. An agent can distinguish it from formation.checkout, formation.compare, and account.status without opening any schema.

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?

Clearly scopes usage to orders created by formation.checkout and signals cost ('Free; does not consume credits'), which helps route against credit-consuming siblings. However, it states no explicit when-not condition or named alternative for other payment questions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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