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

The description says 'If the customer has paid, the order is updated as on the order page,' which implies the tool can mutate order state as a side effect. This contradicts the readOnlyHint=true annotation, so behavioral transparency is seriously compromised.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then lists relevant status values and the important side-effect caveat. It is dense but every sentence adds useful information.

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 does a good job of explaining the returned status categories and amount. It also warns about a possible order update, though that warning creates the annotation contradiction rather than resolving it.

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%, and both parameters are documented in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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: it looks up the actual payment status of an order at the payment provider now, not merely the stored status. It also enumerates the possible statuses and notes the amount, so an agent can distinguish it from stored-order or general order-status tools.

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 makes clear this is for retrieving the current provider-side payment state rather than the stored order state. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but the usage context is clear.

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