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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing return content (the full status enum, cost breakdown, failure reason) and noting it is meant for repeated polling, which matters since no output schema exists.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what is returned, the second gives the usage trigger. The enum listing is dense but earns its place given the absence of an output schema.

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 return-value burden and mostly does so, describing status values, cost breakdown, and failure reason. It omits pagination/format details, but for a single-record read tool it is largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the id parameter is already documented as coming from create_dfy_order or list_dfy_orders. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns one done-for-you order') and enumerates the returned fields (status enum, cost breakdown, failure reason). The word 'one' implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_dfy_orders, letting an agent distinguish single-fetch from list without opening the 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?

'Poll it to track provisioning after create_dfy_order' gives a clear when-to-use context and ties it to the sibling that produces the ID. It lacks an explicit when-not or comparison to list_dfy_orders, but the usage trigger is unambiguous.

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