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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the licence can come back as a PDF certificate, which is genuinely beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about the secret order_token requirement or behavior when the order is unpaid.

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 sentence with zero filler that front-loads the resource and appends the format alternative. Nothing is wasted.

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 doesn't need to explain return values, and annotations carry the safety profile. It is nonetheless thin on prerequisites (payment status, secret token handling) for a tool requiring an order token, leaving meaningful gaps.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the format enum. The description's '(format=pdf)' merely echoes the schema's format parameter without adding syntax or semantics, 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?

The description names a specific resource (the licence) and scopes it to a paid order, with the two output forms stated. It is clearly distinguishable from create_order or get_order_status, though the retrieval verb itself is only implied by the title rather than the description.

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 phrase 'of a paid order' implies a precondition (the order must exist and be paid), which is useful routing context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_download_link or get_order_status, so usage must be inferred.

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