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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the state machine, side effects ('balance credited + bonus applied'), and the distinction between topup and legacy order lifecycles. It does not explain dry_run behavior or response format, but it gives meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare 'check status' definition.

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 efficient sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, the state transitions are compactly conveyed with arrows, and the next-step guidance is placed last without waste. Every sentence 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 status flow and follow-up action are covered, which is the core of what an agent needs. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description still leaves gaps around parameter roles (account_token, dry_run), polling semantics, and potential error conditions. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate. It implicitly ties order_id to a top-up or legacy order but adds nothing beyond the schema's existing order_id description. account_token and dry_run are not explained in the description despite low schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Poll the status of a top-up (or legacy crypto-direct order)'. The state transitions clearly distinguish this from creation tools like topup_create and create_order, and from balance/quote tools. The purpose is 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?

The description implies the tool is used after creating a top-up or legacy order, and explicitly tells the agent to call create_order after a topup confirms. It gives a clear workflow context. It does not explicitly name alternatives for polling or state when not to use it, but the intended usage is clear.

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