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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, it enumerates exactly what comes back (order state, payment state, PAID flag, pickup window, business name, total) and, critically, what does NOT (no customer name, items, payment link), plus the error path ('a code that names no order comes back not found'). With no output schema, this is the disclosure that carries the tool.

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?

One paragraph, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the code provenance, then the return contract, then usage, then the error case. The em-dash enumerations pack detail without padding; no sentence is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description has to describe returns — and it does, exhaustively, including the not-found case. Combined with readOnly annotations and a fully covered single parameter, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 schema already documents the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value by identifying the code's origin (returned by biz_order) and its LBB-XXXXXX shape, which tells the agent where to source the value.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource ('Read the CURRENT state of a pickup order'), scopes it to a confirmation code, and ties that code back to the sibling that produces it ('the LBB-XXXXXX style code biz_order returned'). An agent can distinguish it from biz_order and biz_storefront without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use it after a customer has been sent to a checkout page, to tell them whether the payment has landed and the order is placed.' That is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or a when-not-to-use case, which keeps it off a 5.

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