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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the identity gate ('details only return when they match'), the fact that a token is needed for the approve/reject link (schema), the instruction to relay agent_hint concisely, and the downstream rule that production starts only after customer approval. This is real operational context, not restated annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and states, followed by trigger phrases, prerequisites, and one behavioral rule. No filler sentences; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the key return element (agent_hint) and the state enumeration. Identity requirements, the optional token's effect, and the approval dependency are all covered, leaving nothing material for an agent to infer.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the reason the email parameter exists ('identity — details only return when they match') and reinforces that both order_number and email are jointly required, which the schema alone doesn't motivate.

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 and resource ('Check a customer's DIGITAL PROOF status') and enumerates the four possible states (emailed, awaiting approval, being revised, approved). This clearly separates it from siblings like vivid_order_status or vivid_fulfilment_production_stage.

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?

Gives concrete user phrasings ('where's my proof', 'did you send my proof', 'when do I approve') that map utterances to this tool, plus a stated precondition (order number AND email must match). It does not explicitly name a sibling as an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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