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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description's 'Read' is consistent with those annotations and adds a small hint of access control via 'private,' but it does not disclose anything further about response behavior or limitations. No contradiction exists.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple read tool, though it is terse enough that it omits usage context and sibling differentiation.

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 two-parameter read operation with a rich output schema and strong safety annotations, the description is minimally viable. However, the sibling list includes get_check_result and get_instant_brief_status, and the description does not clarify where Check status fits or when to choose it, leaving a completeness gap.

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 adds no real meaning for order_id or access_token. The word 'private' weakly signals access_token's purpose, but order_id semantics are left entirely to the schema's name and pattern, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states the operation ('Read') and the resource ('Check status'), so an agent can tell it is a status-retrieval tool. It is clear but minimal: it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_check_result or get_instant_brief_status, relying on the word 'status' to carry that distinction.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_check_result or get_check_pdf. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or a preferred selection context, so an agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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