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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the status lifecycle, the specific returned fields (amount, EMC amount, destination address, emc_txid), and that it is used for polling. This adds meaningful context beyond annotations.

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 dense sentences plus a brief note after a dash. The first sentence covers purpose and return values, the second explains usage and status progression. No superfluous words.

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?

Given one parameter, high schema coverage, existing annotations, and an output schema, the description fully explains when to use (polling after buy_emc), what it returns, and how statuses evolve. It also provides cancellation guidance. Completeness is excellent.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the token parameter. The tool description echoes the schema's 'by its token' but adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents it well.

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 states 'Return the current status of a buy_emc order by its token', specifying the verb (return), resource (buy_emc order), and key parameter (token). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning cancel_order for cancellation and implies buy_emc as preceding step.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to poll after buy_emc' and describes the status progression (awaiting_payment → confirmed → emc_delivered → notified). Also states 'to cancel an unpaid order use cancel_order instead', providing clear context and alternative.

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