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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them with a rate-limit/cadence constraint and the notion of an optional customer-facing message, which annotations cannot express. It does not explain behavior for unknown or expired order_id values.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the core action leads and the polling cadence follows as an actionable constraint. 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields and discloses the polling constraint, which is the main risk for this tool. Minor gaps remain around error/expired-session behavior, but nothing essential for a correct call 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 description coverage is 0% for both required parameters, so the description carries the full burden — yet it never mentions order_id or agent_session_id. order_id is self-evident, but agent_session_id's origin and expected format are left entirely undocumented.

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 current status of an order') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what this yields. No sibling tool covers order status polling, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings such as reservation_summary or get_cart.

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 concrete operational guidance — 'Safe to call every 30 seconds; do NOT poll faster' — which is exactly the when/when-not information an agent needs for a polling tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or prerequisite steps (e.g., that it follows place_order or requires an active session).

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