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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that polling continues until 'settled' or 'disputed' and that the delivered output and verification result appear at that point. However, it does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or behavior for non-terminal statuses.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the important terminal-status detail is placed second. Every word contributes meaning.

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 polling tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description delivers the core mechanism but leaves gaps: possible non-terminal statuses, return shape, and error behavior are undisclosed. It is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 has 0% description coverage and only defines order_id as a required string. The description does not explicitly document the parameter, but the overall phrase 'an order's status' gives enough context to infer that order_id identifies the order to poll. This is marginal semantic value beyond the bare 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 uses a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('an order's status'), making the tool's core function immediately clear. It does not explicitly compare itself to siblings like purchase_skill or submit_skill, but the domain of order status checking is distinct enough that an agent can tell it apart.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, when polling is appropriate, or how it fits into an order lifecycle. The description states what it does but not when an agent should choose it over other tools.

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