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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns recorded fulfillment evidence rather than live status, and it flags a domain-specific limitation about public statuses. No contradiction with the annotations is present.

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 sentences with no filler. The action and primary use case are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a valuable caveat without drifting into unnecessary detail.

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 read-only tool with an output schema and robust annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and an important domain caveat. The output schema makes it unnecessary to describe return values in prose.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does tie checkout_id to the create_order flow, which adds context beyond the raw schema, but it does not explain how the ID is obtained, what format it takes, or what to do if it is missing. This is adequate but minimal for the single required parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('recorded fulfillment evidence') and identifies the checkout_id as the key input. It differentiates itself from create_order by calling out the 'lost or uncertain create_order response' use case, and clarifies that public statuses are not sufficient. This is far more specific than the generic title.

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?

The description explicitly says to use this tool 'especially after a lost or uncertain create_order response,' giving a clear trigger condition. It also warns that public statuses are not proof of ISP acceptance or installation, implying this tool provides authoritative recorded evidence. It does not explicitly mention check_availability or validate_order as alternatives, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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