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

The description adds genuinely non-obvious behaviour beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: the credential is a private token held only by the client, and an invalid or revoked link surfaces as a missing order rather than an auth error. That failure-mode disclosure is the kind of thing an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 sentences, no filler, and the return contents are front-loaded before the access caveat. The first sentence is a long comma-list, but every item earns its place by telling the agent what it will receive.

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 carries the burden of describing return content and does so item by item, plus the auth precondition and error semantics. The one gap is that it never differentiates this from the sibling status-check tool.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description contributes extra meaning about the single parameter: it is client-held, not discoverable by the agent, and its failure mode is ambiguous. That is real semantic value layered on top of the schema's format documentation.

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 concrete verb and resource and enumerates exactly what the caller gets back (stage, next-step needs, client-submitted content, latest draft, publication). That is far more specific than the name/title. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similar sibling check_order_status, which the agent must infer.

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?

"For a paid order" and "Needs the client's private order link, which only they have" imply the caller persona and precondition, so usage is implied. It never names an alternative or says when NOT to use it, and the overlap with check_order_status is left unaddressed.

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