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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds substantial value beyond them by enumerating the full status lifecycle and spelling out the returned payload. It does not cover polling/refresh expectations, token expiry, or error behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence beginning with the verb 'Returns', with the status enumeration and the completed-only extras clearly ordered. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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 and only two params, the description compensates well by describing the returned fields and the conditional report payload. The missing piece is when-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools, which leaves a gap for an agent choosing among six tools.

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 100% and both params are documented there (id format, token origin), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail, matching the baseline 3.

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+resource ('Returns status... price, delivery deadline, payment transaction...') and enumerates exactly what is returned. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like cotizar or pagar_solicitud.

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 indication of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites stated, and no note that it requires the token issued at creation (only implied by the schema field). The agent must infer usage entirely.

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