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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: the download URL is gated on verified payment, which hints at conditional visibility of response fields. However, it says nothing about authentication requirements, what an unpaid or invalid order returns, or error behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the behavioral note. It is efficient, though extremely terse relative to the 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?

A read tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation needs the description to do far more. The payment-gating detail is useful but leaves authentication, permitted caller, order-state handling, and return shape entirely unaddressed.

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% and the description never mentions order_id — not its format, origin, or where the caller obtains it. Since the schema provides no semantics at all, the description must compensate and does not, failing even the single-parameter case.

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 verb and resource ('Check an order') but 'check' is vague about what is actually retrieved — status, details, or validity. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_seller_service_orders, verify_usdc_payment, or get_product, which all touch order/payment concepts.

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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, nor any precondition (e.g., must the caller be the buyer, does it require an agent session). The payment sentence describes behavior, not when-to-use.

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