Reconcile a purchase

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: API-key requirement, the post-payment/timeout timing, and a retry caution while the outcome is unknown.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the auth requirement and then the core behavior and caution. There is no wasted text, and the retry warning is placed where an agent will see it.

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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers auth, return content, timing, and a retry caution. The main gap is that it does not explain the order_id parameter, but the schema supplies its UUID type and pattern.

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%, and the description never explains the sole parameter, order_id. "Your owned order" only loosely implies that order_id identifies the order, but it adds no format, ownership, or lookup semantics beyond the schema's UUID type.

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 uses a specific verb, "Returns," and names the resources: "your owned order and bound launch." The title "Reconcile a purchase" reinforces the purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like get_launch or list_launches.

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?

It gives timing context ("after payment or timeout") and a clear caution ("Do not purchase again while outcome is unknown"), which implies when to call it. However, it does not name alternatives or explain when to use get_launch or list_launches instead.

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