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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true and idempotent=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: polling is safe, and an order not belonging to the provided wallet is reported as not found (in the parameter description). Listing the possible statuses also sets expectations about the output. This exceeds what annotations alone provide without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then parameter guidance, safety note, and status enumeration. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. The structure allows an agent to quickly grasp what, how, and why.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately describes what the tool returns: status, start count, and remaining quantity, and enumerates the possible statuses. It does not detail the exact response object structure, but for a status-checking tool, this is largely sufficient. Some edge cases (e.g., invalid order_id) are not covered, but the core information is present.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions, but the description adds extra guidance: how to obtain the agent_token (from place_paid_order or the auth challenge) and the security semantics (proves wallet ownership, non-owned orders appear not found). This supplements the schema meaningfully, so a score above the baseline of 3 is warranted.

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 clearly states the tool tracks orders placed with place_paid_order, specifying the resource (an order) and the action (track status, start count, remaining quantity). It explicitly ties to the sibling place_paid_order, distinguishing it from other tools like search or recommend. The verb 'track' and the scoping to a specific order type make the purpose unmistakable.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on how to obtain and pass the agent_token, and states that polling is safe due to idempotency. While it doesn't explicitly exclude other tools, the context (tracking a specific order type) makes it clear when to use this tool. The mention of the authentication challenge endpoint adds useful context for non-place_paid_order tokens.

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