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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the contextual detail that fulfillment updates appear on the record over time, indicating the returned data is dynamic rather than a static snapshot. It does not discuss response format or error behavior, but these are less critical given the annotations.

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 sentences with no redundancy: the first enumerates the key return values, and the second adds relevant behavioral context about dynamic fulfillment updates. The essential information is front-loaded, and 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?

The description covers the main return values and the dynamic nature of fulfillment updates, which is sufficient for a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema. Minor omissions such as invoice link availability conditions or error handling are acceptable at this level of complexity.

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 order_id description ('The order_id returned by accept_quote') already explains its provenance and meaning. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full parameter explanation.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and the exact data returned: payment status, amount, and invoice link. This cleanly distinguishes get_order from siblings like accept_quote or get_quote, whose names suggest quote submission and retrieval. No ambiguity remains about what resource and operation the tool targets.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative exclusions are provided. The schema's parameter description notes order_id comes from accept_quote, which implies usage after quote acceptance, but the tool description itself lacks that context. Usage is only inferred from the name 'get_order' and the return semantics, not stated as a clear guideline.

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