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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the two possible outcomes, including the non-error 'still awaiting payment' state that an agent might otherwise misread. It omits how long payment confirmation takes to propagate or any handling of invalid ids.

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 precondition and followed by the result states, with no restated title or 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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back (download link, mapId, or awaiting-payment status), and the single parameter is fully covered by both schema and prose. Nothing essential for a correct call 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 parameter is already documented as the id make_map returned; the description goes beyond that by establishing provenance (returned when x402 payment failed) and the timing condition for supplying it (after user confirmation).

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 action (look up an order by id) and a specific outcome (download link plus mapId for revisions), and it explicitly ties itself to make_map's x402-failure path, which separates it from siblings like check_map or revise_map.

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 a precise trigger: call with the order id only after the user says they have paid, and explains that make_map is where the id comes from. It does not explicitly state the negative case (do not call before payment, or what to do if the id is unknown), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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