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

The description reconciles the surprising readOnlyHint=false annotation by disclosing the write side effect: 'Reading the chain also records a payment that just arrived.' It also surfaces the 48-hour founder email confirmation deadline and the credit cost, all of which are behavioral facts annotations don't convey.

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 sentences, front-loaded with state enumeration, then the side effect, then the cost. Nothing is repeated from the title and no sentence is filler.

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 values need no explanation; the description still enumerates the states and the confirmation flag, and it covers the one non-obvious side effect and the cost. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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%; both parameters (orderId, trackingToken) are already documented as values returned by formation.checkout. The description adds no format, scoping, or validation detail beyond the schema, 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 and resource ('Reports the USDC payment state of an LLC or nonprofit formation order') and enumerates the exact state values (awaiting, paid, expired, underpaid, held). It also ties the object back to the sibling 'formation.checkout' that creates the order, so an agent can distinguish status-checking from order creation.

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?

'created by formation.checkout' makes the dependency and the natural call sequence explicit, and 'Free; does not consume credits' tells the agent it is safe to poll. It stops short of saying when not to use it (e.g., for orders that never reached checkout) or how often to re-check.

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