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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description's contribution is the data-coverage boundary: what lifecycle stages are visible and which are not. It adds useful context beyond the structured fields, though it says nothing about authentication needs or what happens if both lookup keys are supplied.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the positive scope is front-loaded ahead of the exclusion. 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 reasonably enumerates the returnable information (proof history, approval, checkout hand-off), which is its strongest completeness signal. However, the unexplained lookup parameters and unresolved 'which identifier is required' question leave a meaningful gap for a status-retrieval tool.

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 of the two parameters (design_id, contact_email) is mentioned anywhere. Critically, required=0 leaves ambiguous whether one identifier must be supplied or whether both are optional filters — the description does not resolve this, so it must compensate and does not.

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 ('looks up where a buyer's designs stand') and enumerates the sub-domains covered: proof history, approval, and checkout hand-off. The contrast clause about paid orders and shipping tracking further sharpens the boundary, though no sibling is named directly.

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?

The negative scope ('does not see paid orders or shipping tracking') implies the buyer should go elsewhere for fulfilment questions, giving partial when-not guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no alternative tool is named, so routing is left to inference.

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