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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces 'It changes nothing' plus adds genuinely new behavioral detail: the exact set of returned fields, explicit exclusions (no customer name, items, payment link), and the not-found outcome for an unknown code. It does not cover rate limits or latency, keeping it from 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the return payload, then usage, then the negative case; every clause carries information. It is a single dense paragraph with colon-separated lists, which is slightly harder to scan than a tighter two- or three-sentence form, but nothing is wasted.

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-shape burden and does so fully (state, payment state, PAID flag, pickup window, business name, total), plus the not-found behavior and the read-only guarantee. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the format (LBB-KKA8Y2) and case-insensitivity, so the baseline is 3. The description adds provenance the schema lacks — that the code is the one returned by biz_order — which meaningfully helps an agent obtain a valid 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the CURRENT state of a pickup order ... by its confirmation code') and pins the scope to orders placed through this connector. The mention of the 'LBB-XXXXXX style code biz_order returned' cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling that creates the order.

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 a clear triggering condition: use it after a customer has been sent to a checkout page, to confirm whether payment landed and the order is placed. It does not explicitly name when-not to use it or point to a named alternative, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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