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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by noting that this is a polling operation for an async payment flow, that conversion yields an order_id, and that authentication requires a Nautilinks API key.

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 compact and front-loaded with the key usage instruction. A small redundancy exists between the first and third sentence, but each sentence still earns its place by contributing timing, purpose, output, or auth context.

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, read-only tool, the description provides sufficient operational context: when to poll, what info to expect (order_id once converted), and the auth requirement. It does not enumerate possible return states or explicitly contrast with get_order_status, but the core invocation context is complete enough.

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?

The schema already fully describes quote_id, noting it is returned by create_order. The description merely repeats this same source without adding additional format, constraints, or edge-case semantics, so credit is not exceeded.

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 explicitly states the verb (check) and resource (quote payment status), and mentions the resulting order_id on successful conversion. This clearly distinguishes get_quote_status from sibling tools like get_order_status by focusing on the quote-to-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 gives clear usage timing: call after create_order returns a payment_url and after handing the URL to the user. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like get_order_status, but the sequential context makes the intended flow obvious.

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