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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by enumerating the possible statuses and noting that 'delivered' includes a download link, which shapes how the agent interprets the response.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the status enumeration followed by the required inputs. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough context: the possible results and where the credentials come from. It could mention error behavior for invalid tokens, but nothing essential is missing.

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 schema already documents the order_id format and token requirements. The description only adds the origin of the values (both come from create_order), which is useful provenance but marginal over the schema itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb (get) and resource (order status), then enumerates the exact status values it returns. It explicitly ties the tool to create_order, cleanly distinguishing it from the other siblings like get_checkout_link and get_pricing.

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?

It states the prerequisite clearly: the order must have been created with create_order, and it requires the order_id and status_token that create_order returned. It doesn't explicitly contrast against alternatives, but the sequencing context (after create_order) is unambiguous.

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