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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it reveals that this is a polling operation (not one-shot), the ~3s cadence, the `terminal` condition, and the payload content of each terminal state (confirmation + signed receipt, refund txid + signed receipt). It falls short of a 5 by not covering timeout behavior, non-terminal response shape, or failure/error cases.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, then a dense second sentence carrying the polling cadence and terminal-state contract. Every word earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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 one-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical contract: the polling loop, the stop condition, and the three terminal outcomes. The notable gap is guidance on what to do if `terminal` never becomes true or an error occurs, but the core invocation knowledge is present.

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%, so the description must compensate. 'Check an order' confirms that orderId identifies the order being polled, which is a minimal semantic contribution, but it adds no format, origin, or validation guidance for the parameter.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Check an order') and adds concrete scope via the terminal states: delivered, refunded, refund_failed. It is clearly distinct from siblings like buy, quote, and verify_receipt, though it never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description gives explicit operational guidance: 'Poll every ~3 s until `terminal` is true' and specifies the exact stop conditions. This is clear context for how to use the tool, but it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like verify_receipt.

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