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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description focuses on outcome semantics instead: it discloses the three observable states (paid with order number and ship-by date, unpaid, expired link) and explicitly limits the payload returned. It does not address behavior on an invalid or unknown token, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 delivering the outcome states, the trigger tool, and the payload exclusion with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 and does so by naming the fields returned when paid and the expired-link case. The unpaid-but-valid branch and error behavior for a malformed token are left implicit, which is a minor but real gap for a status tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description already states the token comes from create_draft_order and may be the whole link. The prose adds only the phrase "a draft from create_draft_order," which restates the schema, 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?

Names a specific operation (report payment status of a draft) and its originating resource, explicitly tied to create_draft_order. It also enumerates the concrete outputs (order number, ship-by date, expired link) and rules out irrelevant data ("Returns no names or addresses"), so it is distinguishable from sibling tools without opening a schema.

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 reference to "a draft from create_draft_order" clearly positions this as the follow-up call in the draft-to-order workflow, which is the primary when-to-use signal. There is no explicit when-not statement or named alternative, but no sibling tool overlaps this status-checking role, so the guidance is effectively unambiguous.

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