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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the identity constraint ("details only return when they match") and the instruction to relay the returned agent_hint, plus a caveat that production starts only after customer approval. No contradiction with 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage examples, then essential constraints and a follow-up instruction. Every sentence adds distinct value with no filler or repetition of annotations. It is appropriately sized for the tool's moderate complexity.

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?

The description covers what the tool checks, when to use it, prerequisites, identity behavior, and what to do with the result (relay agent_hint). Given there is no output schema, it somewhat hints at the return value by referencing agent_hint. It is complete for a simple status check, though it could explicitly state the return format or an example response.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents email and order_number. The description enriches that baseline by explaining why both are required and what happens if they don't match (identity verification, details withheld). This goes beyond the schema's simple field descriptions and clarifies the matching requirement.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "Check a customer's DIGITAL PROOF status" and enumerates the exact statuses it covers (emailed, awaiting approval, being revised, approved). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling status tools like vivid_order_status or vivid_fulfilment_production_stage, which focus on different aspects of the order lifecycle.

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 explicitly states when to use it with concrete user queries: "Use for 'where's my proof', 'did you send my proof', 'when do I approve'." It also notes the prerequisite identity check (order number + email). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to make a reasonable choice.

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