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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds real behavioral value by enumerating the possible states (pending, processing, delivered, refunded) and noting that delivered carries a payout_tx on the destination chain while refunded carries a refund_tx on Base. It omits error behavior for an unknown order_id.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that delivers purpose, parameter, and return states with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by spelling out the four possible statuses and the transaction fields returned for the terminal states. For a one-parameter read-only tool this is nearly complete, though it could note what happens on an invalid or unknown order_id.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. It only identifies order_id as the lookup key and adds no format, source, or example, which is the minimum viable amount of 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource ('Status of an AgentGas order') and the key lookup field (order_id), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling agentgas_status, which an agent could plausibly confuse with an order-status lookup.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call after placing an order, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing guidance distinguishing it from agentgas_status or agentgas_quote.

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