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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: a concrete polling rate limit and the fact that eta_minutes may be absent and a customer-facing message is optional, which tells the agent to handle missing fields.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before return fields and the rate constraint. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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, listing the returned fields and flagging optional ones is the right compensation and is done well. Against that, a two-parameter tool leaves both parameters unexplained, and there is no indication of error behavior for an invalid or already-completed order.

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% and neither parameter is mentioned anywhere in the description. The meaning of agent_session_id in particular (session scoping versus order scoping) is left entirely unstated, so the description does not compensate for the undocumented schema.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ("Poll the current status of an order") that clearly distinguishes this read-only status check from siblings like place_order, cancel_order, or get_cart. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

It gives an explicit operating constraint ("Safe to call every 30 seconds; do NOT poll faster"), which is genuine when/how-to-use guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over siblings (e.g., after place_order, versus get_cart) or when it should not be used, so the guidance is partial.

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