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

With readOnlyHint already given, the description adds the valuable traits: it discloses returned fields, the enumerated next actions (pay, upload_documents, wait), and that links come back fresh on each call. It is consistent with the read-only annotation but says nothing about expired/invalid links or error behavior.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and ending on the credential constraint that governs correct invocation. The mid-sentence field list is dense but every item maps to something the agent must interpret on return.

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-value burden and does so by enumerating the status fields and the possible next actions. What's missing is failure handling — what happens if the URL is tampered with or stale — which the sibling recover_order_links hints is a real scenario.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description genuinely upgrades the single parameter by calling it 'signed' and framing it as the sole credential ('nothing else identifies an order'). That security-semantics detail is not present in the schema text and changes how an agent treats the argument.

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 states the resource precisely ('where an order stands') and enumerates the returned facets (status, payment, balance, due date, documents, next action), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It lacks an explicit verb and never names a sibling, so the contrast with create_order or recover_order_links must be inferred from the schema reference.

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 a clear precondition — you must already have the signed status_url — and states the hard constraint that 'the link is the credential; nothing else identifies an order'. It does not name recover_order_links as the fallback when the link is lost, so the exclusion path for that case is left implicit.

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