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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces that with 'Read-only' while adding context the annotations cannot carry: signed PNG links expire after 24 h, credits charged/refunded/spent are reported, and the polling cadence that avoids duplicate orders. That is exactly the extra behavioral detail this dimension rewards.

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 sentence is front-loaded with the resource and its status enum, then moves to polling guidance and the no-reorder warning, with zero filler. The bilingual restatement in parentheses is redundant for most agents but is a deliberate emphasis device rather than padding.

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 carries the return-value burden itself and does so thoroughly: order-level status, per-variant status, link plus expiry, cabinet link, copy fields, selection flag, and credit accounting. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret this call 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already states 'order_id from creative_order / creative_list'. The description adds no further meaning to order_id, so the baseline of 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 first clause names the exact resource and scope ('Status of one creative order') and then enumerates the status vocabulary and per-variant payload, so an agent knows precisely what it gets back. The closing 'do NOT order again' implicitly distinguishes it from creative_order, the sibling that creates work.

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 an explicit trigger ('poll every ~20 s while status is queued, copy or rendering'), an explicit prohibition against re-ordering, and a downstream instruction to surface links to the person. The when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions are both stated.

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