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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the record is mutable in that fulfillment updates accrue over time, meaning repeated calls can return richer data. It does not cover error behavior for invalid or non-accepted order_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 tightly written sentences with no filler, and the return content (status values, amount, payment link) is front-loaded before the secondary note about fulfillment updates.

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 returns and does so well by listing statuses, amount, and payment link. It stops short of describing failure modes for unknown or unaccepted order_ids, which is the main remaining gap for a 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 100% and the single parameter already documents that the order_id comes from accept_quote. The description's reference to an 'accepted order' is consistent with the schema but adds no format or validation detail beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (Returns) and resource (an accepted order's status) and enumerates the exact status values an agent can expect. The phrase 'accepted order' implicitly separates it from get_quote, which deals with pre-acceptance quotes.

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 implied rather than stated: the schema ties order_id to accept_quote, so the agent can infer this is the post-acceptance lookup. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_quote or what to do if the order_id is not an accepted order.

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