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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states it is a 'check' operation (non-destructive) and specifies the return values. Though it doesn't explicitly declare it's read-only, the verb and context make it clear.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with instructions and return values.

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 status-check tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite (submit_payment), required inputs, and possible statuses. It is sufficient and doesn't leave major gaps.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context by stating the parameters are from submit_payment, but does not provide any additional constraints or examples about their format or length.

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 ('Check') and resource ('an order you placed'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like submit_payment (which creates orders) and get_catalog (which lists products). It explicitly states what it does.

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 tells when to use this tool: after submit_payment, using the returned orderId and orderKey. It also lists the possible return statuses. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, the context is clear and appropriate for a simple status check.

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