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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is pre-declared. The description adds real value beyond that: the full status enumeration, the authorization semantics (agent_token proves wallet ownership; a foreign order is reported as not found), and the polling-safety guidance.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the credential requirement, then the behavior/status list. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description names the fields returned and enumerates all possible status values, plus the auth requirement and polling safety. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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 both param descriptions already state provenance ('order_id from create_paid_order') and the wallet-proof/not-found behavior. The description essentially restates the schema text rather than adding syntax, formats or edge cases, 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 (track/get status) plus the exact resource (an order created by create_paid_order) and enumerates the returned fields (status, start count, remaining quantity). The reference to create_paid_order and the contrast with list_paid_orders lets an agent distinguish it from siblings without opening a 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?

Gives clear context: use it to poll an order after create_paid_order, and it explicitly notes polling is safe due to read-only/idempotent behavior. It stops short of naming when to prefer the sibling list_paid_orders (e.g. 'to see all orders, use list_paid_orders instead'), so exclusions are absent.

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