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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real context: it returns indexed settlement evidence, timestamps and provenance, and it deliberately withholds payee/payment identifiers. That data-minimization behavior is not derivable from annotations or schema.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the lookup action before the behavioral guarantees. Every clause carries weight, though 'Preserves indexed settlement evidence, timestamps and provenance' is slightly jargon-dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully signals what comes back (settlement evidence, timestamps, provenance) and what is withheld, while annotations handle the safety profile. Error/not-found behavior for an unknown hash or id is the only meaningful omission.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it partly does by mapping the two accepted identifier forms ('intent hash' vs 'chain-qualified deposit identifier') onto the kind enum of intent/deposit. It does not clarify the required id format, length bounds, or the 'chain-qualified' syntax, leaving gaps for a low-coverage schema.

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 ('Look up') and the resources it accepts (a public intent hash or chain-qualified deposit identifier), which is concrete enough for an agent to recognize a receipt lookup. It stops short of naming or contrasting with the sibling peerlytics_activity, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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 clause 'never initiates a financial action' implies this is a read-only retrieval path and sets a boundary on use, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to the alternative (peerlytics_activity). Usage is only implied rather than stated.

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