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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: exact failure modes (HTTP 402 payment_required with JSON-RPC -32002, HTTP 401 with WWW-Authenticate), the provisioning path, human review, and an email fallback. That is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a read tool.

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?

Purpose and returned fields are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by key/auth mechanics. Sentences are dense but each carries actionable content; the provisioning URLs and email fallback make it longer than strictly necessary for an invocation decision.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and safety is covered by annotations. Purpose, identifier semantics, and auth/provisioning obstacles are all addressed; only edge cases such as an unknown order_id (e.g. 404 behavior) are left unstated.

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 the single parameter is already documented as 'order.id returned by dispatch.order'. The description's note that it is the same key as dispatch.order (the status_url served over MCP) adds only marginal clarification, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return the current state') and resource ('a work order'), and enumerates the returned fields (status, assignment, quote, timestamps). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling dispatch.order by tying the order_id back to that creation call.

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?

Makes clear this reads orders created by dispatch.order and that the caller must hold the same key, which implicitly excludes anonymous/self-serve callers. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other siblings, but the context is unambiguous.

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