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

Beyond readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description reveals the full status transition graph, the ready-state behavior with esim.activation_code as an LPA string, and associated fields iccid, smdp, and matching_id. It also sets polling and delivery-time expectations that annotations do not provide.

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?

The description is three tightly scoped sentences: purpose, status state machine, ready-state payload, then polling guidance. Every sentence adds necessary information and there is no redundant boilerplate or repetition of annotation values.

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?

The output schema can carry the return-shape detail, so the description is free to cover status semantics, key fields, and timing. An agent has enough context to call this tool correctly and interpret readiness without additional information.

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?

With one required token parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by identifying token as the order identifier. It does not specify the token's format or provenance, but for a single obvious parameter this is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 this tool returns an order by its token and adds the order status lifecycle, clearly distinguishing it from sibling get_* tools like get_deposit, get_wallet, and get_usage. 'An order by its token' plus the status flow makes the resource and scope unambiguous.

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 description gives concrete usage context: after payment, poll every ~10 seconds and expect delivery usually under a minute. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the polling guidance clearly routes the agent to use get_order for post-payment status checks.

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