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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact beyond the structured fields: it returns no personal data, which is useful privacy context. It does not cover behavior on unknown or expired order_refs or any rate limits.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the returned-status facets front-loaded. Every clause carries information that is not duplicated elsewhere in the structured fields.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description compensates by enumerating what is returned (checkout, payment, shipping status) and noting the absence of personal data. For a one-parameter read-only tool this is nearly complete, with only error/not-found behavior left unstated.

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 is fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'for an order_ref from create_checkout' simply repeats the schema's own parameter description verbatim, adding no new meaning or format constraints.

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 the specific resource and the three status facets returned (checkout, payment, shipping), which is far more informative than the title 'Order status'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from write-side siblings like create_checkout and quote_order, but never states a verb or an explicit contrast with the other read siblings.

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?

Naming 'an order_ref from create_checkout' gives clear context for when this tool is applicable, i.e. after checkout creation. There is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to an alternative tool for other lookup needs, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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