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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that delivery is included only after Coinbase reports payment COMPLETED, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention any side effects, required permissions, or what happens if payment is not completed, leaving some gaps for a tool that likely involves a financial transaction.

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 a single sentence that is efficient and front-loads the primary purpose. It includes a conditional detail that is relevant to the tool's behavior without unnecessary fluff. Slightly more structure could be added, but it's appropriately concise.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral condition. However, it lacks details on what the returned status looks like, error handling, or any prerequisites (e.g., must have an active order). Given the simplicity, it's adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'order_id' implicitly by referring to 'the order', but doesn't explain the format or any constraints beyond what the schema's type 'string' provides. The description adds minimal value for the single parameter, so a baseline 3 is appropriate given the low complexity.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('order status'), and adds a meaningful detail about when delivery is included. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on order status rather than shelf operations, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage for checking order status and collecting delivery after payment completion, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like buy_shelf or list_shelves. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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