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

No annotations exist, and the description carries the burden well: declares read-only behavior, explains that 'ready' only follows confirmed payment with the provider, warns that on-chain payment is final with no refunds, and specifies the Authorization header format. It also flags untrusted seller text and downloaded files as data, not instructions — exactly the safety context an agent needs.

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 status list and auth note are correctly front-loaded, but the instruction to check before paying is stated twice in near-identical wording ('Call this before ever paying again' / 'Check get_order_status before ever paying again'), wasting space.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this covers everything an agent needs: the possible return states, auth requirements, the payment-safety precondition, and prompt-injection handling. Nothing material 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?

The single orderId parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage, 'From create_order'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only implicitly adds that the order must belong to the caller ('one of your orders'), which is marginal added meaning.

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?

Opens with a specific statement of what it returns and enumerates the exact status values (pending, confirmed, ready, expired, needs_review), so the agent knows the shape of the answer before calling. It is clearly distinct from siblings like create_order or download_order.

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 a concrete trigger — call this before paying again — which is the key usage context. It does not name alternatives or state when it should not be used, 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.