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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing scope of returned data and the 'No personal data' guarantee, which matters for an agent deciding whether it can surface this to a user; it stops short of describing error behavior for unknown refs.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the returned resource, and every clause (link to place_order, reference format, privacy note) carries distinct information. Nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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 one-parameter, single-purpose read tool with rich annotations, the description covers the identifier format and the nature of the result. There is no output schema, so a little more on what the status response contains would fully close the gap.

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 single parameter has no schema description (0% coverage), so the description carries the burden — it names the argument semantically ('by its reference') and gives a concrete format example ('AIR-2026-…'), which is exactly what the schema omits. Additional validation rules are still absent.

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?

States precisely what is returned (payment and order status) and for which resource (an order placed with place_order), and anchors it to the sibling tool that creates the resource. An agent can distinguish it from search_tyres, get_quote and the other siblings without opening a schema.

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 phrase 'of an order placed with place_order' establishes the prerequisite and points to the correct lookup key, so an agent knows this is a follow-up to a placement. It does not spell out exclusions (e.g. use get_quote before ordering), but the usage context is clear.

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