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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the terminal states (expired, failed) and a polling cadence, but says nothing about what happens on an invalid/expired token or what to do once a terminal state is reached.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the state enumeration and followed by the actionable polling instruction. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is buried.

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 two-parameter, annotation-covered polling tool with no output schema, the description effectively enumerates return values and gives timing guidance. Only error/terminal-state handling is unaddressed.

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% and the schema already explains that order_token is a secret returned once by create_order. The description adds no parameter detail, 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?

'State of an order' plus the enumerated status values tells an agent exactly what this tool returns and clearly separates it from create_order. It lacks an explicit retrieval verb, but the resource and returned value set are unambiguous.

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?

'Poll every few seconds after the buyer pays' gives concrete timing guidance tied to a lifecycle event, which is the key usage context for a polling tool. No explicit when-not or sibling alternative is named, but none is really needed given the sibling set.

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