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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description focuses on useful output context. It adds that the response includes terms, payment, poster, and whether the ask is waiting or live, which goes beyond the safety annotations.

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 short and front-loads the main point: full terms of one ask. The sentence fragments are efficient, though slightly clipped phrasing like "as which ask" makes it marginally less polished.

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 simple read-one tool with rich schema descriptions and clear annotations, the description is complete enough to guide invocation. It explains the returned information without needing to specify an output schema, though it omits edge cases such as invalid ids.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description restates that the id can come from a pay link created with pay_by "card" but adds little beyond the schema’s own wording.

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 the resource as one ask and lists the specific contents it returns: done criteria, payment, poster, and status. It distinguishes the tool from list-oriented siblings by emphasizing one ask, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by the pay-link id reference and the retrieval of full terms, but the description does not say when to use this tool instead of list_asks, collect_answer, or other siblings. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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