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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the polling cadence constraint and the rule against prematurely reporting delivery, plus what the manifest_url resolves to.

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 dense sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second carries the behavioral constraints. No filler and no repetition of the schema.

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?

For a read-only status check with no output schema and a fully documented single parameter, the description fills the remaining gap by describing what the response contains and how delivery state should be interpreted. Nothing an agent needs 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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents order_token and its origin (quote_training_dataset). The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond it, matching the baseline for full 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 (check) against a specific resource (dataset order) and enumerates the surfaces returned: payment state, Stockfilm's approval decision, and download.manifest_url contents. It is clearly separable from siblings like get_dataset_agreement, create_dataset_checkout, and get_4k_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 explicit operational rules — poll at most every 10 minutes while awaiting approval and never report delivery before status is 'delivered'. It does not name alternative tools to use in other situations, but the workflow conditions are clear enough for correct invocation.

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