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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuine domain behavior: 'on-hold' is terminal, the amount is never charged, and the reservation expires after three days. That is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent can't get from the 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the demo caveat and the prerequisite. Tight and without filler, though the mixed-language framing is slightly abrupt.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Combined with the terminal-state behavior note and the handle provenance, the definition gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly, missing only alternative-routing guidance.

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 for the single 'order_handle' parameter. It does so by stating where the handle comes from ('aus create_order'), which is the key semantic an agent needs even though field format isn't specified.

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 ('Zeigt den aktuellen Stand einer Bestellung'), so the agent immediately knows this is a read of order state. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast with siblings like list_orders or wait_for_payment, so differentiation relies on the agent's own inference.

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?

Provides one useful prerequisite ('Verlangt das Handle aus create_order') that ties it to the create flow, and clarifies the demo's terminal state. It gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over wait_for_payment or list_orders, so usage is only implied.

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