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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond that. It explains each status meaning, checkout_url validity, bank settlement, shipping timing, tracking email delivery, charged totals, and a privacy guarantee that addresses and contact details are never returned.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then efficiently enumerates the possible statuses. Despite being a dense sentence, every clause carries operational meaning, including validity, next steps, shipping, and privacy constraints.

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 one-parameter lookup with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete enough to call correctly. It covers id provenance, status interpretation, next actions, timing expectations, privacy behavior, and totals without redundant schema explanation.

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 pattern and example. The description still adds useful provenance by tying the id specifically to create_order and noting the cs_ prefix, though it does not add further syntax beyond the schema.

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 and resource: check an order by the id returned from create_order. It clearly distinguishes this lookup from sibling create_order by explaining that create_order produces the id and that a new order is needed after payment_failed or expired.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: after create_order, using the returned cs_ id, and it directs creating a new order when the status is payment_failed or expired. It does not explicitly cover exclusions or when to prefer quote_harness/list_options, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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