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

Annotations already cover the safe/idempotent read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false). The description adds genuinely new behavior: this is a polling/eventually-consistent endpoint and an `unresolved` account must not be re-sent but instead have its own order polled. That is real operational context beyond the 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?

Front-loads the core purpose and the polling instruction in two tight sentences. The inline JSON example is mildly redundant given the required param is already in the schema, but it is short and harmless.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description supplies the key async/polling workflow. What remains thin is the relationship to non-multi-account order tools, but for a single-resource fetch this is close to 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%, including the UUID pattern and the response_format enum, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's inline example only restates multi_account_order_id without adding format or constraint detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the resource (a single multi-account order) and what it returns (each account's result), which is enough to separate it from the sibling list_multi_account_orders. The verb is implicit in the clipped phrasing 'One multi-account order and each account's result,' but the resource is 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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to call it: poll after placing a multi-account order, and poll the child order instead if an account is left `unresolved`. It does not explicitly name competing siblings like get_order or get_multi_account_order variants, so 4 rather than 5.

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