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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's lack of explicit 'read-only' mention is fine. The description adds the state transition list, which is behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not mention rate limits or return format, but the output schema covers return values. With annotations covering safety, this is a solid 4.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the state transitions and the requirement for the token. Every word adds value; no fluff.

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?

The tool is simple with only 2 required parameters decentralized over annotations and output schema. The description provides the crucial constraint (status_token) and state transitions. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call 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 coverage is 50%, and the description adds meaning to status_token by explaining it comes from create_order (beyond the schema's 'statusToken'). However, external_order_id has no description in the schema and the description doesn't clarify its role, so the description partially compensates but doesn't fill all gaps.

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 states a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('order state'), enumerates the state transitions, and mentions the required token. It differentiates from siblings like create_order and validate_order by focusing on polling status.

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 explicitly states that the tool requires the status_token from create_order, which is a clear prerequisite. It implies usage for checking order state after creation, but does not explicitly say when to use it instead of validate_order. The context is generally clear.

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