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. Beyond that, the description adds real value by disclosing the returned payment fields and enumerating the ten possible status values, which tells the agent what a response can look like. It stops short of describing error behavior, such as what happens for an unknown or expired order id.

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 resource and the data it returns, followed by the endpoint and the status vocabulary. The long status list is dense but each token is a meaningful return value. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 carries the burden of describing return values, and it does list the relevant fields and status values. However, it omits how to source the order_id and what an error or unknown-order response looks like, both of which matter for a polling-style lookup tool.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter order_id has only a regex pattern, no prose. The description contributes nothing beyond '{id}' — it never says the id is a 16-character hex string or, more importantly, where the agent obtains one (presumably from create_order). For a one-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the description should compensate and does not.

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 resource (an order and its USDC payment) and enumerates the fields it reports: state, received, remaining, confirmations, refunds. It also identifies the underlying endpoint (GET /api/order/{id}), which pins down the operation precisely. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like create_order, but the siblings are distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read-side counterpart to create_order, used to poll or inspect an order's payment progress. There is no explicit statement of when to use it, when not to, or prerequisites such as needing a previously created order. The status enum hints at polling scenarios but never says so.

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